By Tim Baldwin
All Montana children have a right to education. Our state constitution explicitly provides this. This means the school environment must be conducive for learning. Setting policy to this effect is good. Currently, our local public schools are considering updating their discrimination policy to create a new class of students based on gender “identity” or “expression.” Is this language necessary or good for education equality?
Some who say yes do so based on a political agenda: they want “victory” over people who oppose LGBTs. Some who say no do so based on a religious perspective. They don’t want to give any social credibility to LGBTs. But consider something more logical.
Our schools have a firm policy that prevents students from mistreating other students and prevents discrimination based on sex. Under federal and state law, the “sex” class has universal application to include LGBTs. It seems the school board thus wants to create a special “sex” class. This appears superfluous. Too, when society creates a special class within an already protected class, there is a tendency for the “special class” to be treated better than everyone else. Thus, there is a danger that such a policy could defeat the goal of educational equality.
Jesus once expressed, hurt no one without cause. If everyone followed this simple principle, special class protections would be unnecessary.
By Joe Carbonari
By adding sexual orientation, expression, and identity to the schools’ non-discrimination rules some feel we would be tempting Pandora. I doubt it would be a significant problem.
Our sexual guidelines have grown out of our experience as human beings. The traditional couplings seem to work best. As to its being God’s Law, that’s stopping the thinking process a bit short. It’s akin to saying “because I said so … now shut-up.” Really?
I am willing to accept the marginal sexual exploration that may ensue if we acknowledge the decency and “sameness” of those who differ on their sexual makeup. I believe our species will survive, right down to our valley. It’ll be OK.
It is not OK to inflict psychological hurt, in general. That’s what the rules are about. In a changing society with changing views, more of us now see the balance between the threat of societal dissolution and undeserved hurt favoring an embracement of what may be somewhat uncomfortable.
Self-expression is a freedom. It is not to be confused with a license. Sexual relationships are powerful, directly and indirectly. One must be careful.
I think we have a responsibility to assist this transition in thinking. To those who feel otherwise I ask their further consideration. What value do you set for harm on the scales of decency? Much hurt is unintentional.