Stemming the Tide of No Promo Homo Laws in American Schools Madelyn Rodriguez
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Modern American Volume 8 | Issue 1 Article 5 2013 See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil; Stemming the Tide of No Promo Homo Laws in American Schools Madelyn Rodriguez Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/tma Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rodriguez, Madelyn. "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil; Stemming the Tide of No Promo Homo Laws in American Schools." The odeM rn American 8, no. 1 (2013): 29-47. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in The odeM rn American by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil; Stemming the Tide of No Promo Homo Laws in American Schools This article is available in The odeM rn American: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/tma/vol8/iss1/5 SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL; STEMMING THE TIDE OF NO PROMO HOMO LAWS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS By: Madelyn Rodriguez1 “When someone with the authority of a teacher, say, the class, some students begin to taunt describes the world and you are not in it, there is a John because of his two gay dads. moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked The other students ridicule John with into a mirror and saw nothing.”2 taunts that he is gay too and his dads surely must have AIDS. Ms. Smith has never received any training on how to I. Introduction teach these subjects or how to handle students bullying other students. She The average primary school student spends is unsure of whether to step in and the majority of his or her waking hours in school.3 stop the taunts because she is afraid The school experience plays a monumental role in anything she says to defend John and determining a child’s worldview.4 It is no surprise, his family could be construed as a pro- then, that the issue of what to teach in schools is motion of homosexuality. As a result, a perennial conflict, especially when it relates to she ignores the taunts and continues homosexuality.5 Several states and many more local her lesson. After class, Ms. Smith sees governments have implemented policies prohibiting students still ridiculing and harassing any instruction given to students that could be John in the hallways. She looks on, but interpreted as portraying homosexuality in a positive does not step in to stop it, still unsure light.6 These policies, often referred to as “No Promo of what doing so would mean for her Homo” policies, have been accused of contributing employment. This is not the first time to what is an already toxic environment for many John has been subjected to harassment students.7 To illustrate the possible effects of these at school, but John does not report it laws, consider the following hypothetical : because he does not believe anything will be done. John is a middle school student in The above hypothetical illustrates some of Arizona. He has two gay dads. John’s the questions raised by state and local laws prohibiting science teacher, Ms. Smith, spends a the promotion of homosexuality. Teachers are left class teaching the required Arizona to ask what they are and are not permitted to do. sex education and AIDS curriculum. Specifically, they are left to determine whether In order to comply with the law she interceding and stopping anti-gay bullying might is required to promote abstinence and be construed as promoting homosexuality as an dispel myths about the transmission acceptable alternative. Is a teacher like Ms. Smith even of HIV. Further, she is not permitted permitted to tell students that having two parents of to promote the homosexual life-style, the same gender is not something to harass someone promote homosexuality as a positive for, or could this too be considered promoting alternative or suggest that some meth- homosexuality? ods of homosexual sex are safe. During SPRING 2013 29 The issue of maintaining an open and safe II. Background environment for all children in school should be of serious concern to parents, educators, society, and the law.8 Given that teachers will inevitably leave A. No Promo Homo: Origins an immeasurable impression on the values, morals, The gay rights movement has been a and opinions of the children whom they teach, the catalyst for controversy and social change since its question becomes one of which values should be inception.23 Traditionally, anti-gay arguments have taught.9 By and large, there have been two separate emerged from religious doctrine, medical opinions, views in the debate over student instruction.10 The or social stigmatization.24 More recently however, traditional view believes that the school is tasked a new anti-gay rhetoric has enjoyed tremendous with inculcating students with a prescribed set of success.25 These arguments are broadly referred to norms and values, usually the status quo.11 The as “no promotion of homosexuals” or “no promo more liberal view believes that schools should act as homo.”26 Professor William N. Eskridge, Jr., has a sort of “marketplace of ideas.”12 This view tends written extensively on the topic 27 and describes the to eschew the inculcation of traditional values and following underlying logic behind No Promo Homo: instead seeks to allow each teacher the freedom to if the state adopts a law giving rights to homosexuals introduce differing perspectives and allow for debate or protecting homosexuality it is thereby promoting within the classroom.13 Logically then, it is clear that homosexuality.28 It should be the state’s purpose to the traditional view endorses more limitations on promote good conduct and discourage conduct that teachers and other school officials, while the modern, is not as good.29 Because homosexuality is not as good liberal view tends to endorse the right of the teachers as heterosexuality, laws should not be adopted giving to present differing perspectives.14 rights to homosexuals or protecting homosexuality.30 Generally the courts, while recognizing the These sorts of arguments and policies are need for the free exchange of ideas, have found that especially pervasive in education.31 No Promo Homo the political body should be given the authority to educational policies are “local or state educational decide what values should be taught and which should policies which restrict or eliminate any school based not.15 While this is a reasonable view, a problem instruction or activity that could be interpreted as arises when the government, through its schools, positive about homosexuality.”32 These policies may is permitted to dictate a set of “right” and “wrong” be worded in a manner so as to prohibit promotion values.16 The imposition of a set system of beliefs and of homosexuality or go further and ban all discussion values prescribed by government officials from above of homosexuality.33 These policies help to further is naturally susceptible to abuse.17 This article will reinforce many of the myths and misconceptions argue that the imposition of No Promo Homo laws about homosexuality that still persist in society at in schools violates the Equal Protection Clause and large.34 further encourages the bullying and harassment of Some supporters of these laws argue that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (“LGBT”)18 the purpose of not promoting homosexuality is to students, resulting in even more egregious violations protect children who are wavering in their sexual of the Equal Protection Clause. Part II explores identity and may be swayed towards homosexuality the origins and implications of No Promo Homo if it were to be promoted or discussed in school.35 laws.19 Part III then provides an overview of select Proponents maintain that if teachers or schools are No Promo Homo Laws.20 Part IV outlines current allowed to discuss homosexuality, it will signal to jurisprudence under the Equal Protection Clause of children that such behavior is acceptable; thereby the United States Constitution and argues that No serving to “indoctrinate” children into believing Promo Homo policies in schools violate the Equal non-heterosexuality is acceptable.36 However, Protection Clause.21 Lastly, Part V proposes several forcing schools and teachers not to promote, or possible responses available to mitigate the effect of even acknowledge, that homosexuality exists as an No Promo Homo educational policies, and alleviate alternative ignores the reality of society at large.37 their long-lasting and damaging effects on students.22 Although many No Promo Homo policies claim to 30 THE MODERN AMERICAN be grounded in the idea that children should not be proactive role in ensuring that schools protect LGBT taught about sex at school,38 sexual identity has become students to the full extent required by the law.52 a major issue, even for younger children.39 Children A 2009 survey of middle and high school may already be aware of their own homosexuality,40 students found that eighty-four percent of LGBT and increasing visibility of openly gay individuals youth experienced harassment at school the previous in the media and within many families ensures year.53 LGBT young adults who reported high levels that homosexuality will not merely go away if it is of bullying during middle and high school are 5.6 ignored in schools.41 California seems to be the leader times more likely to attempt suicide, and 2.6 times in understanding the importance of acknowledging more likely to have clinical levels of depression.54 A the LGBT community in schools, recently passing study of the higher rate of suicides in LGBT youth the FAIR Education Act which will require LGBT identified several related factors such as stigma and inclusive curriculum.42 discrimination, especially acts such as rejection or abuse by peers, bullying, harassment, and denunciation B.