Sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in religious schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading over the parent handbook for a (secular) school to which DC was accepted, I was glad to see that sexual orientation is listed alongside race, gender, national origin, etc in regards to non-discrimination and anti-bullying policy. I was wondering if religious schools usually have that spelled out as well, whether it varies by school or denomination, or if they normally make no mention of it.

Episcopal schools have it spelled out, like secular schools, and have LGBT faculty. Catholic schools do not. St. Anselm's has a "don't ask, don't tell," policy, or at least they did a few years ago.

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of information I was asking for.

-OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I appreciate the honest curiosity. I'm not sure why others are being such defensive jerks about this. It appears many student handbooks are available online. Here are a few.

https://heights.edu/dev2/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/StudentHandbook2014.pdf
prohibiting taunts of a "racial, religious, or derogatory nature" (so not calling out sexual orientation, but potentially covering it if school wants to)

http://www.stalbansschool.org/document.doc?id=998
STA covers sexual orientation

http://www.gonzaga.org/document.doc?id=1178
covers sexual orientation

Maybe others will help find other info.

Thanks to you too, that's all I wanted to know.

[Anonymous]

This one is pretty cool for a religious school:

"At St. Albans School, diversity means valuing an individual’s race, color, gender, creed, ethnicity, cultural background, economic circumstance, human capacity, expression of thought, and sexual orientation to create an educational environment that fosters understanding and cooperation."

[Anonymous]

Similarly, this is from St. Andrew's nondiscrimination policy on its web site.

"Consistent with the values of an Episcopal school, St. Andrew's is committed to a diverse and inclusive community with respect to race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, family status, economic circumstance, age, and physical disability in its student body, faculty and staff."

More importantly, I know there is an active LGBT student community that is well integrated into the school. It is not a policy in writing only

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This one is pretty cool for a religious school:

"At St. Albans School, diversity means valuing an individual’s race, color, gender, creed, ethnicity, cultural background, economic circumstance, human capacity, expression of thought, and sexual orientation to create an educational environment that fosters understanding and cooperation."

See, in my opinion this is precisely the opposite of a rational anti-discrimination policy. The policy should say that these are irrelevant characteristics that should not form the basis for assessing or characterizing students. Not that they should be valued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your child is gay why in the world would you want them to attend a school that is completely against their lifestyle? Honestly, WTF?

wait, your applying for 9th grade right ? And your child is sexually active? In 8th grade ; aren't they just 14 years old?

One doesn't need to be actively engaged in sex in order to have a sexual orientation. I knew mine before becoming sexually active and I suspect most others do as well.

So, this is about you then OP, not your 14 year old ? I'm curious, how could your 14 year old possibly be discriminated against from the 8:30 Am - 3:30 pm while taking math, english, history and science , eating lunch and taking gym .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This one is pretty cool for a religious school:

"At St. Albans School, diversity means valuing an individual’s race, color, gender, creed, ethnicity, cultural background, economic circumstance, human capacity, expression of thought, and sexual orientation to create an educational environment that fosters understanding and cooperation."

See, in my opinion this is precisely the opposite of a rational anti-discrimination policy. The policy should say that these are irrelevant characteristics that should not form the basis for assessing or characterizing students. Not that they should be valued.

You believe the traits that make up someone's identity are irrelevant and should not be valued? I wouldn't belong to a school that follows that theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your child is gay why in the world would you want them to attend a school that is completely against their lifestyle? Honestly, WTF?

wait, your applying for 9th grade right ? And your child is sexually active? In 8th grade ; aren't they just 14 years old?

One doesn't need to be actively engaged in sex in order to have a sexual orientation. I knew mine before becoming sexually active and I suspect most others do as well.

So, this is about you then OP, not your 14 year old ? I'm curious, how could your 14 year old possibly be discriminated against from the 8:30 Am - 3:30 pm while taking math, english, history and science , eating lunch and taking gym .

I'm the OP, not any of the people you quoted. I don't have a 14 year-old, I have a 3 year-old, and my question doesn't involve her. It's about the published non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies of different schools, and it has been answered. Thanks for your concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See, in my opinion this is precisely the opposite of a rational anti-discrimination policy. The policy should say that these are irrelevant characteristics that should not form the basis for assessing or characterizing students. Not that they should be valued.

Would you say diversity is a good thing that should be celebrated, or not a big fan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, in my opinion this is precisely the opposite of a rational anti-discrimination policy. The policy should say that these are irrelevant characteristics that should not form the basis for assessing or characterizing students. Not that they should be valued.

Would you say diversity is a good thing that should be celebrated, or not a big fan?

The word "diversity" is too vague allow for an answer to that question. Diversity of what? Skin colors? Talents? Sexual attractions? I have this old, archaic view, which I know is extremely out of date and unpopular, where things like race, religion, national origin and the like should be completely irrelevant in public life. I think we shouldn't care about any of these things in schools, jobs, and other areas of public life. People are welcome to celebrate their own backgrounds in their personal lives, but in society at large we should all simply be Americans. I realize that the categorically opposite view is the one in vogue today, where we need to emphasize all these formerly irrelevant characteristics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This one is pretty cool for a religious school:

"At St. Albans School, diversity means valuing an individual’s race, color, gender, creed, ethnicity, cultural background, economic circumstance, human capacity, expression of thought, and sexual orientation to create an educational environment that fosters understanding and cooperation."

See, in my opinion this is precisely the opposite of a rational anti-discrimination policy. The policy should say that these are irrelevant characteristics that should not form the basis for assessing or characterizing students. Not that they should be valued.

You believe the traits that make up someone's identity are irrelevant and should not be valued? I wouldn't belong to a school that follows that theory.

Then you'll fit in very well in the private schools in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have this old, archaic view, which I know is extremely out of date and unpopular

As the Germans (who are no strangers to extremely unpopular views) say, Selbsterkenntnis ist der erste Schritt zur Besserung: self-awareness is the first step to improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have this old, archaic view, which I know is extremely out of date and unpopular

As the Germans (who are no strangers to extremely unpopular views) say, Selbsterkenntnis ist der erste Schritt zur Besserung: self-awareness is the first step to improvement.

Very strange, inapt response. I don't view holding an unpopular view as a bad thing, or as any evidence that the view should be changed or adjusted. Someone who values lemming-like conformity -- of the sort the Germans have been known to exhibit now and then -- might understandably have a different view on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, in my opinion this is precisely the opposite of a rational anti-discrimination policy. The policy should say that these are irrelevant characteristics that should not form the basis for assessing or characterizing students. Not that they should be valued.

Would you say diversity is a good thing that should be celebrated, or not a big fan?

The word "diversity" is too vague allow for an answer to that question. Diversity of what? Skin colors? Talents? Sexual attractions? I have this old, archaic view, which I know is extremely out of date and unpopular, where things like race, religion, national origin and the like should be completely irrelevant in public life. I think we shouldn't care about any of these things in schools, jobs, and other areas of public life. People are welcome to celebrate their own backgrounds in their personal lives, but in society at large we should all simply be Americans. I realize that the categorically opposite view is the one in vogue today, where we need to emphasize all these formerly irrelevant characteristics.

OK, so not a big fan, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, in my opinion this is precisely the opposite of a rational anti-discrimination policy. The policy should say that these are irrelevant characteristics that should not form the basis for assessing or characterizing students. Not that they should be valued.

Would you say diversity is a good thing that should be celebrated, or not a big fan?

The word "diversity" is too vague allow for an answer to that question. Diversity of what? Skin colors? Talents? Sexual attractions? I have this old, archaic view, which I know is extremely out of date and unpopular, where things like race, religion, national origin and the like should be completely irrelevant in public life. I think we shouldn't care about any of these things in schools, jobs, and other areas of public life. People are welcome to celebrate their own backgrounds in their personal lives, but in society at large we should all simply be Americans. I realize that the categorically opposite view is the one in vogue today, where we need to emphasize all these formerly irrelevant characteristics.

OK, so not a big fan, then.

Got it -- this is a very helpful response. I now have a clearer idea of the value of this sort of exchange of ideas with you.