A news story caught my eye a few days ago, and I’ve been quietly fuming about it for a few days without reaching any kind of reasonable conclusion regarding what, to me, seems to be a patently absurd and immoral outcome.
I’m getting ahead of myself, though. The story concerns a school teacher in Indiana. The teacher’s name is Amy Sorrell, and she was employed with a school district, and oversaw the publication of a middle school/high school student newspaper.
Sometime in March, a female student writer submitted to be published a short editorial. In this editorial (which was subsequently published), the girl reported that a male friend of hers had just told her that he was gay. She filled her editorial with calls that people be tolerant of other human beings who are different, and explained how she thought that the world would be a little better if people could learn to see other people as people instead of treating them as if they were evil. The piece is largely bereft of any arguments in support of her position and is generally filled with the sort of touchy-feely, “we’re all OK” type of sentimental drivel that is generally expected from average writers. Basically, her article is everything that I’ve come to expect from the pens of young journalists.
While I may respect her idealism (and her conclusions), mind you, I’ve got to admit that there was very little in that article that was worth taking seriously in any intellectual context. Nevertheless, despite the clear lack of academic rigor in her argument, the principal of the school in which the paper was published went crazy. Why anyone would go crazy over so inconsequential an editorial is beyond me, but that is clearly what happened.
The principal of the school suspended Amy Sorrell – that’s right, the teacher – for not getting his approval before publishing so controversial an editorial. He upbraided her for ‘exposing’ his students to such thoughts without his foreknowledge and consent. The teacher just had a hearing in which it was to be decided whether she was to be fired for this act. Because she was willing to apologize for ‘exposing’ the children to controversial material, she was only transferred to another school in the district. Crazy, right?
Alright, first of all… Controversial? I could understand if the girl had argued that society should permit gay marriage or allow gay couples to adopt children. While I feel these are areas in which there is a clear answer from an ethical standpoint, I can see that many people would disagree with me and should expect vigorous dissent for my views should I present them publicly. But this girl didn’t argue for anything like that – all she argued for is that people treat other people with respect and kindness, regardless of what they think of them privately. Since when is that so controversial a subject as to warrant a principal flipping out on a teacher?
Secondly, just how conservative a place is Indiana that ‘exposing’ children to the idea that they should treat people kindly is seen as radical? I mean, haven’t these children already been ‘exposed’ to murders and sexual situations on television? Haven’t they been through sexual education to learn about human reproductive physiology? Aren’t these children likely to have heard explicit lyrics in the music they listen to? Is it really going to damage their frail little psyches to hear a fellow student’s opinion that they should be nice to one another? It strains credulity to believe that this kind of backwards thinking still predominates in any part of the civilized world.
Doesn’t Indiana see that this sort of reaction is going to give them a bad stain on their reputation? Just like Kansas can’t live down the stain of our religious conservatism and their obsession with revising the educational science standards, Indiana is poised on the brink of a yawning cliff. If Indiana reacts one way, they will be seen as standing up for the principles of equality and dignity that mark the best things about our society. If Indiana reacts another way, they plunge down into the void filled with primitive superstitions – a place where it is seen as perfectly natural to think that there is a god so powerful that he could create the universe, but who is so neurotic that he is deeply concerned with consensual sexual practices that take place between human beings in private.
What sort of message does this give to anyone who is a little different from the majority? Young gay people in Indiana had better’d keep their secret to themselves, I suppose. After all, it’s apparently still ‘controversial’ to suggest (even in an immature way) that they be treated like human beings.
