Private Schools and Society

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:

The firing of a gay physical-education teacher from a Columbus Catholic high school would be a violation of a city ordinance if a complaint were filed and investigators determined the dismissal was based on her sexual orientation.

Carla Hale of Powell, who worked at Bishop Watterson High School in Clintonville for 19 years, said she was fired in March after an anonymous parent complained that an obituary for Hale’s mother listed the name of Hale’s female domestic partner.

^my link to what is assumed to be the school in question.

On the one hand, why would a gay person ostensibly seek to encourage a Catholic education, when at least this bunch of Catholics are so against homosexuals? Then we have the issue of a possible violation of a city ordinance conflicting with the idea that religious schools be allowed a certain latitude as relates to their religious convictions.


For debate:

Which is the greater harm (or good); allowing religious schools to fire folks over their sexual preferences, or to hold that all who are shown capable should be allowed to work (where we 'decide' this school is a part of the city as a whole)? I assume this is a privately funded school, but still contend society has a right to make certain decisions in this regard.

I propose the greater good is in allowing this woman, who hasn't been accused of anything within the school setting, to be allowed to continue to teach. But what does that say about allowing folks to practice their beliefs as they see fit? I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

[Darias]

[Replying to post 1 by JoeyKnothead]

Private schools should be able to do what they want, so long as they aren't subsidized by the government. If they are subsidized by the government, then they can't do what they want because our tax dollars are supporting them (this is why the boy scouts must welcome atheists and gays -- even though they still refuse to welcome atheists).

I feel sorry for the person who was fired, but she made a choice to work for an arguably homophobic organization. She took that risk, so she really has no right to use the government to force a private organization to comply.


If this example leads to the greater question "is private education good for society in general, or should the government regulate it" -- my answer to that is the government should stay out.

Keep in mind that segregation was once enforced by the government -- and all the schools were state run -- you couldn't suggest equality or desegregation there -- and for any private schools that would have existed who would have promoted desegregation would have been forced by the government to uphold apartheid.


If property rights only matter when the majority gets to dictate what you can do -- then it's not longer a right, but a privilege just waiting to be taken from you by the moral majority or by the government.


This doesn't mean the woman who was fired should not be shown sympathy. Why would you want to use government force to make her work for those people anyway? If you care enough about her, and arguably someone will, then someone else will offer her a job, someone else could raise funds to help her pay her bills, someone else will start a raise awareness campaign for her.

There's nothing in my answer that suggests we just leave people out to dry.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2:

Great post.

I felt obligated to acknowledge a general agreement with the concepts, but I need some time to respond to the particulars. I'm torn between folks thinking I ain't keeping up, and that I'm just spamming. I beg the court's forgiveness. Twenty-three you say?

[dianaiad]

From the article here:

The firing of a gay physical-education teacher from a Columbus Catholic high school would be a violation of a city ordinance if a complaint were filed and investigators determined the dismissal was based on her sexual orientation.

Carla Hale of Powell, who worked at Bishop Watterson High School in Clintonville for 19 years, said she was fired in March after an anonymous parent complained that an obituary for Hale’s mother listed the name of Hale’s female domestic partner.

^my link to what is assumed to be the school in question.

On the one hand, why would a gay person ostensibly seek to encourage a Catholic education, when at least this bunch of Catholics are so against homosexuals? Then we have the issue of a possible violation of a city ordinance conflicting with the idea that religious schools be allowed a certain latitude as relates to their religious convictions.


For debate:

Which is the greater harm (or good); allowing religious schools to fire folks over their sexual preferences, or to hold that all who are shown capable should be allowed to work (where we 'decide' this school is a part of the city as a whole)? I assume this is a privately funded school, but still contend society has a right to make certain decisions in this regard.

I propose the greater good is in allowing this woman, who hasn't been accused of anything within the school setting, to be allowed to continue to teach. But what does that say about allowing folks to practice their beliefs as they see fit? I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

Is a problem...but how is this different from the idea that "Christian" schools can refuse to hire Mormons, or atheists, or ?????

There is, after all, a reason that Catholic school exists, and a reason the parents spend a goodly amount of money to send their kids to it, even while their property taxes go to fund public schools they don't allow their children to attend. It's because they have a problem with public school education. They want a Catholic education, and specifically, they want THAT Catholic school education.

There is another issue here: it's one of honesty. This teacher, who, if gay, has been lying to her employers for years. If she knows that active homosexuality is against the rules (because against the doctrine of the church that owns and runs the school) and has chosen to not only break those rules, but lie about it....just what sort of character does she have? What is she teaching? Hypocrisy 101?

Here's my problem: if she had, when she realized that she could not live by the doctrine of the church that hired her, told them the problem and then come to me (if I were in charge of hiring at a school) for a job, I'd have hired her in a heartbeat. Nor would I have expected her to keep her homelife/family any sort of secret.

But now? She's been lying to people for years, knowing that she was being a hypocrite. I have a problem with that.

..............................and yes, I do 'walk the walk,' here. I'm not gay. I AM Mormon...and I could have ignored my own beliefs and signed the little 'pledge of faith' to get teaching jobs here. I didn't do it, though...for the same reason this woman should not have done what she did.

[chris_brown207]

There is, after all, a reason that Catholic school exists, and a reason the parents spend a goodly amount of money to send their kids to it, even while their property taxes go to fund public schools they don't allow their children to attend. It's because they have a problem with public school education. They want a Catholic education, and specifically, they want THAT Catholic school education.

There is another issue here: it's one of honesty. This teacher, who, if gay, has been lying to her employers for years. If she knows that active homosexuality is against the rules (because against the doctrine of the church that owns and runs the school) and has chosen to not only break those rules, but lie about it....just what sort of character does she have? What is she teaching? Hypocrisy 101?

Here's my problem: if she had, when she realized that she could not live by the doctrine of the church that hired her, told them the problem and then come to me (if I were in charge of hiring at a school) for a job, I'd have hired her in a heartbeat. Nor would I have expected her to keep her homelife/family any sort of secret.

I would have to agree with dianaiad, if this was a privately funded organization (and do not take any federal/city/state funding), then they are allowed to set their own hiring, and firing policy - as long as it meets the general guidelines, and is not located in one of the twelve states that forbids discriminating against an employee based upon their sexual orientation. However, they would have needed to list that homosexuality was was disqualifier for employment in their employee handbook - their policy on such a thing cannot be assumed. If it is not in their employee handbook - then they could be sued for firing without cause. Them being a Christian organization does not exempt them from having hiring and firing policies spelled out, and being there are so many different sects of Christianity who have different stances on homosexuality it would be one thing that would need to be stated plainly.

[micatala]

From the article here:

The firing of a gay physical-education teacher from a Columbus Catholic high school would be a violation of a city ordinance if a complaint were filed and investigators determined the dismissal was based on her sexual orientation.

Carla Hale of Powell, who worked at Bishop Watterson High School in Clintonville for 19 years, said she was fired in March after an anonymous parent complained that an obituary for Hale’s mother listed the name of Hale’s female domestic partner.

^my link to what is assumed to be the school in question.

On the one hand, why would a gay person ostensibly seek to encourage a Catholic education, when at least this bunch of Catholics are so against homosexuals? Then we have the issue of a possible violation of a city ordinance conflicting with the idea that religious schools be allowed a certain latitude as relates to their religious convictions.


For debate:

Which is the greater harm (or good); allowing religious schools to fire folks over their sexual preferences, or to hold that all who are shown capable should be allowed to work (where we 'decide' this school is a part of the city as a whole)? I assume this is a privately funded school, but still contend society has a right to make certain decisions in this regard.

I propose the greater good is in allowing this woman, who hasn't been accused of anything within the school setting, to be allowed to continue to teach. But what does that say about allowing folks to practice their beliefs as they see fit? I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

Is a problem...but how is this different from the idea that "Christian" schools can refuse to hire Mormons, or atheists, or ?????

There is, after all, a reason that Catholic school exists, and a reason the parents spend a goodly amount of money to send their kids to it, even while their property taxes go to fund public schools they don't allow their children to attend. It's because they have a problem with public school education. They want a Catholic education, and specifically, they want THAT Catholic school education.

There is another issue here: it's one of honesty. This teacher, who, if gay, has been lying to her employers for years. If she knows that active homosexuality is against the rules (because against the doctrine of the church that owns and runs the school) and has chosen to not only break those rules, but lie about it....just what sort of character does she have? What is she teaching? Hypocrisy 101?

Here's my problem: if she had, when she realized that she could not live by the doctrine of the church that hired her, told them the problem and then come to me (if I were in charge of hiring at a school) for a job, I'd have hired her in a heartbeat. Nor would I have expected her to keep her homelife/family any sort of secret.

But now? She's been lying to people for years, knowing that she was being a hypocrite. I have a problem with that.

..............................and yes, I do 'walk the walk,' here. I'm not gay. I AM Mormon...and I could have ignored my own beliefs and signed the little 'pledge of faith' to get teaching jobs here. I didn't do it, though...for the same reason this woman should not have done what she did.

I would largely agree, although I think the timeline of all this might be a mitigating factor.

Firstly, 19 years ago the atmosphere was a little different. You say you would hire this teacher today, and I applaud you for that. A lot of other places would as well.

19 years ago it would have been much, much harder for this person to get a teaching job most anywhere. 19 years ago, gays were faced with the choice every day, do I hide who am I and/or what I am doing for the simple practical expedient of getting a job and finding a place to live, or should I be entirely up front in all situations, thereby making my life several orders of magnitude more difficult, even just to acquire such basics as employment and housing?

Now, 19 years ago is admittedly not the same as 49 or 99 years ago, and things were better then than previously, but the atmosphere still presented these kinds of difficult choices to gays all the time.


Also, it would be interesting to know how long the relationship was going on. If the person was hired 19 years ago but at that time was single, perhaps no one but herself knew she was gay. In this case, that would be a little different than you being Mormon, as most people who are Mormon (or follow any other religion) do not do so entirely anonymously or in isolation.


So, it may have been (and I know I am creating a hypothetical situation here) that she was working there for some time in a situation which, while even then you might say she was being somewhat dishonest, should not have caused anyone any concern. Later, perhaps, she becomes "more dishonest" if you will, getting into a same-sex relationship.

In other words, I think the possible progressive nature of what is going on is, to me, a mitigating factor, in combination with the society-wide discrimination that existed in the past, even 19 years ago.




To make another, admittedly extreme, analogy, suppose we were talking ancient Rome during the reign of an emperor where even being known as a Christian meant a high probability of death. Would it really be fair to criticize a Christian in this situation for "dishonesty" for not admitting to all and sundry what his or her faith was?

Now, of course, this person was never facing death, but the point is there is a spectrum of what kinds of discrimination might exist for gays, or Mormons, or blacks, or Christians, or people who are left-handed or claim to worship the flying spaghetti monster. Expecting a person who may face discrimination simply for being identified as part of a given group to always be honest about being in that group, regardless of the consequences, seems to me to be an unfair expectation.

[help3434]

Teachers at private schools should be able to be fired for not meeting any standard that the school sets. They are representatives of the school. On the other hand I think that people such as janitors and cafeteria workers should be protected from being fired for such discriminatory reasons even at private institutions.

[dianaiad]

I would largely agree, although I think the timeline of all this might be a mitigating factor.

Firstly, 19 years ago the atmosphere was a little different. You say you would hire this teacher today, and I applaud you for that. A lot of other places would as well.

I would have done it nineteen years ago, as quickly as today. In fact, I would have been more likely to have hired her BECAUSE she was willing to respect both the rules she could no longer comply with and her own relationship.

19 years ago it would have been much, much harder for this person to get a teaching job most anywhere. 19 years ago, gays were faced with the choice every day, do I hide who am I and/or what I am doing for the simple practical expedient of getting a job and finding a place to live, or should I be entirely up front in all situations, thereby making my life several orders of magnitude more difficult, even just to acquire such basics as employment and housing?

Now, 19 years ago is admittedly not the same as 49 or 99 years ago, and things were better then than previously, but the atmosphere still presented these kinds of difficult choices to gays all the time.


Also, it would be interesting to know how long the relationship was going on. If the person was hired 19 years ago but at that time was single, perhaps no one but herself knew she was gay. In this case, that would be a little different than you being Mormon, as most people who are Mormon (or follow any other religion) do not do so entirely anonymously or in isolation.

Not really. I know of no school, religious or otherwise, that discriminates against sexual orientation. The problem isn't what one prefers; it's what one does about that preference. Catholics especially understand the idea of the person who chooses celibacy over 'sin,' as they see it. It would have been none of their business what sins the teacher would have preferred to commit, as long as they weren't actually committed, now, would it?

Had she 'not known' she was gay nineteen years ago, for instance, or if she knew she was but simply didn't act on it, then her decision point was when she decided to act on her preferences; she really needed to choose THEN; partner or job as a Catholic school teacher. Yeah, it's hard. It might not even be 'fair' as everyone else sees it, but Catholicism is pretty upfront about it's stand on homosexual relationships, and as far as I am aware, if you want to teach at a Catholic school, you have to agree to abide by Catholic moral values, whether you agree with them or not.

You know, the way if you want to work for the Disneyland organization, you can't grow a beard unless it's part of your costume. Their jobs, their rules.

So, it may have been (and I know I am creating a hypothetical situation here) that she was working there for some time in a situation which, while even then you might say she was being somewhat dishonest, should not have caused anyone any concern. Later, perhaps, she becomes "more dishonest" if you will, getting into a same-sex relationship.

In other words, I think the possible progressive nature of what is going on is, to me, a mitigating factor, in combination with the society-wide discrimination that existed in the past, even 19 years ago.

Not really. nineteen years is a long time to lie...and if the conflict arose more recently than that, then THAT was when she had to make a decision.

To make another, admittedly extreme, analogy, suppose we were talking ancient Rome during the reign of an emperor where even being known as a Christian meant a high probability of death. Would it really be fair to criticize a Christian in this situation for "dishonesty" for not admitting to all and sundry what his or her faith was?

That's not analogous. It isn't as if the Christians in Rome could go anywhere else...or if the penalty wasn't a bit more than 'you can't work for us.'

Now, of course, this person was never facing death, but the point is there is a spectrum of what kinds of discrimination might exist for gays, or Mormons, or blacks, or Christians, or people who are left-handed or claim to worship the flying spaghetti monster. Expecting a person who may face discrimination simply for being identified as part of a given group to always be honest about being in that group, regardless of the consequences, seems to me to be an unfair expectation.

It is when the result of the dishonesty is to penalize someone else for THEIR religious beliefs. Because isn't that what was happening? This woman was being as discriminatory and bigoted by her dishonesty as some would accuse the school of being toward her, especially when the only penalty involved here was "if you can't live according to the rules of the religion that hired you, you can't work here." It's not as if that were so onerous a requirement.

I'll give you an example, a 'real world' one that IS analogous: one of the teachers of the local Christian schools met and married a Mormon, and after about five years (during which she worked for that school and was a popular and beloved member of the staff there) she decided to convert to Mormonism.

She went to the school board, told them her decision, and said that given the circumstances, she could no longer honestly sign their declaration of faith; she would teach for the rest of the term, promising to keep her personal religious opinions completely out of Algebra, but that unless they waived that requirement, she would have to leave.

They would not waive it...and she left. She got a great reference from her colleagues, and everything worked out. She found a job very soon after, for twice the pay, at a local public high school. (What can I say, math teachers are still in demand pretty much everywhere).

Your analogy to the Christians (where the penalty was being used as lighting at Nero's parties) is hardly the same thing, even here fifty years ago.

[Clownboat]

Had she 'not known' she was gay nineteen years ago, for instance, or if she knew she was but simply didn't act on it, then her decision point was when she decided to act on her preferences; she really needed to choose THEN; partner or job as a Catholic school teacher. Yeah, it's hard. It might not even be 'fair' as everyone else sees it, but Catholicism is pretty upfront about it's stand on homosexual relationships, and as far as I am aware, if you want to teach at a Catholic school, you have to agree to abide by Catholic moral values, whether you agree with them or not.

(Quoted you Dianiad, but this is not directed at you or your post).

I wish the Catholic position on raping little children was enforced as much as the anti homosexual aspect seems to be. Fire the homosexual, but move the molesting priests around.

Should they be allowed to fire her. I reluctantly have to say "yes" (being private and all).

Should they deal with the plank in their own eye before worrying about a scenario like this one. Yes.

Does it appear that they are worrying about their own plank, doesn't appear so, but changing the focus to homosexuality sure may keep some attention off of their own failings.

[dianaiad]

Had she 'not known' she was gay nineteen years ago, for instance, or if she knew she was but simply didn't act on it, then her decision point was when she decided to act on her preferences; she really needed to choose THEN; partner or job as a Catholic school teacher. Yeah, it's hard. It might not even be 'fair' as everyone else sees it, but Catholicism is pretty upfront about it's stand on homosexual relationships, and as far as I am aware, if you want to teach at a Catholic school, you have to agree to abide by Catholic moral values, whether you agree with them or not.

(Quoted you Dianiad, but this is not directed at you or your post).

I wish the Catholic position on raping little children was enforced as much as the anti homosexual aspect seems to be. Fire the homosexual, but move the molesting priests around.

Should they be allowed to fire her. I reluctantly have to say "yes" (being private and all).

Should they deal with the plank in their own eye before worrying about a scenario like this one. Yes.

Does it appear that they are worrying about their own plank, doesn't appear so, but changing the focus to homosexuality sure may keep some attention off of their own failings.

Ok, here I have to argue with you. It is NOT the fault of the Catholics that some of their priests are pedophiles. Their fault (and it is a grievous one) is that once those pedophiles were found, they tried to hide/ fix/ whatever the situation themselves, and put the reputation of the church ahead of the welfare of the children. That is quite sufficiently bad, but you need to get something straight here.

these men were not pedophiles because they were priests. They became priests because they were pedophiles. Predators go where the prey is; where the good hunting grounds are. Pedophiles deliberately choose careers and activities that put them in contact with children.

Less than 1% of Catholic priests are pedophiles and abusers. That we know.

One out of a hundred. The PROBLEM here isn't that so many are pedophiles. The PROBLEM lies in what the church does about the few that are. They SHOULD have handed them over to the Inquisition, and then turned the priest over to law enforcement. If they were willing to take 'em back after the civil authorities got through with 'em and put 'em in some reclusive monastery where every second of their time is regulated and children are not allowed, fine...but first they pay their debt to the children.

Either way, their position on pedophile priests has absolutely nothing to do with this matter.