The Day of Silence came and went on April 17. My school was on Spring Break, so we missed it, but I’m willing to bet the Gay/Lesbian/Straight Alliance group at my school will have a day of silence on their own soon.
The Day of Silence is a day for homosexuals and those sympathetic to their cause can choose to be silent for the whole day as a way of protesting bullying and injustice directed towards homosexuals. At least that’s the official line advertising the day. Despite the innocuousness on the surface, there is a definite agenda behind the D.O.S.
The teacher's picture of a shirt worn in his class.
On The Book Jam (a website forum for educators that I frequent nowadays), a fellow teacher posted on the Day of Silence. There was a bit of a confrontation between some students in his class. In his own words:
From what I found on the (D.O.S), it was originally started by pro-homosexual groups. What started out as a peaceful stand turned into a very volatile situation, when the anti-homosexual groups walked into school wearing anti-homosexual shirts. They confronted each other during lunch, where a yelling match began. Later in the day, a student that wasn’t wearing a shirt originally came into my classroom wearing the shirt to start something with a openly lesbian student in my class. I had him remove the shirt immediatly. My class was disrupted the first few minutes, but I made it a teachable moment. I knew my “normal” lesson was going to have to be scrapped. We are in the middle of a poetry unit, so I had my students express their anger, fear, hurt and other feelings in poetry using similies. By the end of the hour, everyone left in smiles.
He then asked, “When do students lose their first Amendment rights?” He also asked if anyone knew of any Supreme Court cases relevant on the matter (he gave a few that he had found).
Another teacher, whom I greatly respect, responded:
I always get really philosophical on issues like this and my question is, “Is it just mankind’s nature to need opposition in order to better define our own selves?” From cavemen to Romans to Nazis to Crips and Bloods to Gay-Bashers we’ve always had, as a species, person vs. person conflict. Even the Buddhist monks get their ass kicked now and then by people opposed to their way of life. A part of me suspects it’s part of our DNA as human beings and another part of me believes humankind, in general, are just idiots and unless we elevate our way of thinking, we are going to cause our own self-destruction. Really, has any species on the planet ever been more deserving of extinction than us?
Not so helpful when it comes to 16 year old teens puffing out there chests hurling anti-gay rhetoric at other kids, I know… but connected somehow, no?
Though I did not know about any Supreme Court cases, here was the response I wrote:
You stated it right when you hit on disturbing the classroom. That is my line in the sand, and I think it should apply to all viewpoints equally. That is, if a student walks in with an obsene t-shirt personally attacking homosexuals, and the student is intending on causing a confrontation, it’s gotta go. By the same token, if a student walks in cross-dressing, he’s gotta change too. He might complain about how I’m supressing his individuality or discriminating against him, but such talk to me is a bunch of hot air…he’s disturbing the learning environment in my classroom, and I can’t allow either expression in the name of “individualism and/or freedom of speech.”
That being said, I think we need to be careful and make a distinction between that and expressing a point of view. That is, many students (and teachers) across America object to homosexual behavior and/or same-sex marriage not out of fear (though many do), but for moral, health, religious, or principled reasons. I think it is unproductive and unreasonable to demonize these folks by labeling them “hate mongers,” calling them “homophobes,” or something like that.
Students in my class often bring up the subject, and what I tell them is this: calling someone a name, be it “faggot” or “gay” or whatever is out of bounds in my class. Using homosexuals as the butt of jokes is out of bounds. Attacking the person like that is illegitimate. That *is* homophobia. But there is a difference between that and being against a lifestyle or behavior for the reasons above. If you engage in the former, I will come down on you pretty hard. But if you engage in the latter, I have no problem. I recognize walking the line, especially for young high schoolers, is pretty difficult, but that won’t change as long as the lines are blurred like they are being blurred now.
If a student were to wear a t-shirt that says “yes on Proposition 8,” I’d allow that. It’s an expression of a political/moral point of view, and it’s no more out of bounds than someone wearing a “keep abortion legal” shirt or “Obama/Biden 08″ shirt. If a student group, say, a Christian group, wants to discuss the biblical view of homosexuality in their meeting on the day of silence, that should be allowed if the day of silence is being allowed. If a conservative group wants to engage folks in discussion during lunch on why Iowa should not have allowed for SSM or something, they should be allowed if the counter view is allowed to flourish.
Some like to say that viewpoints like that (being against homosexual behavior for health/religious/moral reasons) are what leads to physical gay bashing (this was expressed in the media in the wake of the Matthew Shepherd murder). If that is the case, that would make Alcoholics Anonymous responsible every time a drunk gets beat up in a back alley….that is a direct quote, by the way, not from a conservative talk radio pundit, but from Al Rantel, himself a homosexual, who was a KABC talk show host at the time.
Before the election, I was having an online discussion with a few fellow teachers on proposition 8. I was arguing for prop 8, but all both could manage was an emotional vitriol against me personally. They couldn’t substantively engage with my arguments; mostly they angrily called me names. I have had similar experiences whenever I discuss this issue, and my conservative friends and colleagues have had similar experiences. This is sad, and we teachers need to take measures to teach more civility, especially in controversial issues like this; civility needs to be taught for *both sides,* not just the conservative side. Classically, tolerance is reserved for those you disagree with; it doesn’t mean thinking all beliefs/behaviors are right and good.
People disagree with my beliefs and behaviors all the time…in other words, I get “judged.” Doesn’t bother me a bit, nor should it. When I was younger and I did something that hurt myself or others, my parents did not acquiesce to that behavior. That was an expression of their love, and I’m grateful for it. Demonizing those you disagree with is the wrong way to go, and *that’s a two way street.*
__________________________________________________________________
Though I could have brought up the dangers of homosexual behavior itself, I chose not to. The reason is that it’s common parlance these days to immediately shout down the conservative Christian point of view on sexuality by calling names. You are ostracized even before you state your case. It was this attitude I wanted to critique. I wanted to show it as the sham it is. Name calling is not an argument. The specific case against the supposed benignness of homosexual behavior or traditional marriage is a conversation for down the road…need to clear the brush first.
Check out a few of my other posts on homosexuality and Same-sex marriage.
__________________________________________________________________________________
If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button at the top right in the sidebar).
