By James R. Birrell
A local Utah County high school teacher, a woman who had just moved from California to Utah, allegedly began the current school year by telling her mostly LDS students in one 10th grade honors English class not to be judgmental about sexual orientation, and to be more open-minded toward same-sex marriage. Students were told to, as the paper reported, move from “their realm of reality to [the teacher’s] realm of reality” (Daily Herald, August 26, 2003, A1). And they were allegedly told not to inform their parents about what had been said. The teacher denied the allegations made by more than one student.
Three days later in one of the Salt Lake City newspapers, on the editorial page, a writer defended the allegations by claiming that the goal of school was to “teach children (in addition to facts and figures) how to think for themselves and to express those thoughts in a logical manner.”
The author lamented that some parents were bothered by the teacher’s attempt to instruct their children to be open-minded about sexual orientation and same-sex marriage. Parenthetically, it wasn’t only the teacher who came under fire from a few parents and students for these allegations; a teacher at the school informed me that those same students also come under fire from some peers for complaining to their parents. This was clearly a polarizing matter and a public relations mess- the kind the press and critics of Utah County Mormons (all Mormons, really) enjoy lapping up.
The disgruntled editorial writer continued by asking, “Why should any topic be so forbidden that it cannot even be discussed rationally?” He added, “If parents are so afraid that their children will be persuaded by an alternative point of view, maybe their own argument on that subject isn’t as strong as they wish to believe.” He concluded by suggesting that “there is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs, but let them come from having looked at all sides of an issue, not from what someone has told you to believe.” He also said that our “ancestors” came to America to express their beliefs freely; however, too many of us are out to quash free speech when it conflicts with our moral standards. The author concluded by warning readers that “it is not same-sex marriage that ultimately will bring down society, but the intolerance which forbids the expression of alternative thought” (Deseret News, 8/29/03).
If I understand the writer’s thoughtful arguments, he is defending the following Progressivist ideals that are so common today:
Schools exist to help children rationally and intellectually modernize, i.e., construct, deconstruct, or reconstruct their core values, whatever their origins, in order to be more in alignment with the current trends and secular values of the day. After all, children may sometimes be better off if professional educators and other child-centered advocates are allowed to determine what children need to know and experience; they are the experts.
Given the number of parents who fail to teach any values to children, values that may help them avoid such things as unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, tooth decay, uncritical bias and such, why not allow teachers to arm children with information about any potentially problematic possibility, especially where risk or rejection is involved?
Religious parents who teach children to be judgmental about certain behaviors may isolate their children and make them appear to be less tolerant, and, therefore, less humanitarian. And if those children act contrary to or independent of family morality and expectations, isn’t it better for the children if teachers provide them with vital information the parents might be reluctant to share, like how to get birth control or think about gay marriage? A teacher may become a child’s potential confidant, a rational advocate, where parental perspective and parent-child relationships may be hindered by emotional frustrations. After all, the teacher is a central component of the so-called village of children.
Given the cultural relativism that now permeates public (multicultural) education, is disagreeing with parental authority and disidentifying with parental bias or values in school really that troubling? Current theories in teaching and learning support the idea that children must construct their own value systems; no more training up a child in old fashioned norms and notions. This is not modern.
The parent may teach, but let the child decide; the school, which increasingly assumes to know best what children need, will then guide. After all, because the day of the child is different from the era of the parent, how could parents object to having their child exposed to diverse points of view by informed and current theorists? Ignorance only isolates. Prejudice will divide. How else will children learn not to be intolerant, judgmental, or closed-minded, all precursors to prejudica or prejudice, if they cannot be exposed to all ideas in school as part of their process of becoming educated, democratic citizens in a postmodern pluralistic society?
Isn’t it is reasonable to assume that parents who are confident in their belief system will not be overly concerned about the presence of diverse beliefs? Why should they be troubled if any one belief is challenged in the market place of democratic participation and public instruction called the classroom?
Education in a pluralistic society rightly seeks to eradicate bias in all forms; thus, equality means that all voices and values are equal; none is favored. None is preferred. All affirm. This is the crown jewel of humanism, to preserve the dignity of all by avoiding judgment and promoting acceptance as tolerance. This is the new pluralistic American educational and social reality. And it is compassionate.
In a public arena that cannot favor one opinion over another, as a symbol of fairness and equality to all ideas, individuals and cultures, moral certitude sets up problematic polemics. Moral absolutes become polarizing. Anyone with a sense of certainty is boxed in to an opinion; this is anti-intellectual (blind faith), separatist (divisive), and intolerant (disagreeable).
True freedom is self-determination in all matters pertaining to reality, morality, and possibility. Parents ought to recognize this truth and ponder the ways in which “training up a child” notions may hinder a child’s curiosity, freedom, and enjoyment.
I have tried to broadly capture what I believe the writer of the editorial may be saying in his frustration with some LDS parents who held the teacher accountable for her alleged comments. And I have sought to frame my interpretations of his arguments in postmodern Progressive language and thinking that is common to our current humanist discussions on race, culture, sex and difference in America. The above bulleted arguments give insight into the heart of Progressivist ideals and values, and every thoughtful, conservative Christian ought to be well acquainted with them.
These arguments are as compelling as they are condemning. If they are true, then those of us who reject the idea of gay marriage, for example, are stigmatized by faith in old ideals. This sets us up to be singled out and criticized, and rightly so- we are the enemies of progress. Many BYU students have already experienced this singling out and stigmatizing in high school while attending so-called leadership training where they were sorted into corners and stigmatized by beliefs in such things as gay sex; e.g., those who think homosexuality is a sin step to that corner.
In fairness to teachers, public schooling is Progressive. Higher education is Progressive. And Progressive education does not purposefully embrace Christian principles; it embraces diversity or difference as humanitarian and egalitarian. Celebrating diversity means that one thing must be different from another- from a standard or tradition; hence, when we celebrate diversity we stigmatize tradition and glamorize difference. This is progression, whereas in contrast, celebrating majoritarian traditions is now seen by many as digression and oppression. Preservice and inservice teachers learn this in a hundred ways; it is woven through nearly every aspect of their work and curriculum. It is the new reality. As such the Utah teacher was likely only being true to her training, if the allegations are true.
However, if she was using her institutional authority to disparage a faith she disagrees with, or to promote a sexual agenda she agrees with, she was wrong. And if she told her students not to speak about the matter with their parents, she was even more wrong!
And she was intellectually dishonest; she was using the idea of tolerance to silence opposition. Those of us with traditional value systems see so much of this in society.
For that reason, I am thankful that a few concerned parents had the courage to speak out and to hold the teacher accountable. I hope that their moral certitude on matters of right and wrong did not come across as arrogance. Our initial response at such times should be kindness, so that better arguments and needed understandings are not overcome by excessive emotions. Parental outrage may only leave the teacher defensive, leading her to dismiss the parent’s concerns as blind religious bigotry. And hopefully religious parents will not demonize a teacher because she advocates a position that is counter to their personal beliefs but central to the mission of public education. Minds and hearts are rarely changed when emotions are highly charged. Such times demand discernment in conduct. Let the Spirit will guide (see 2 Nephi 32: 2-5).
And we need not be defensive about or apologize for our beliefs against gay marriage. A careful search will reveal that much has been written that provides strong arguments against legalizing this so-called union and about a host of other important matters to religious conservatives. And history is on our side; remember that advocates of the divorce culture 25 years ago argued that no harm would come from liberalizing divorce laws in America. Some said it would actually help families and society. They were wrong. Divorce is not the ideal. Its unintended legacy increases over time and rises to a crescendo in adulthood, says Judith Wallerstein, co-author of The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce.
It is not hateful to say that children need a father (man) and mother (woman) who are committed to one another in a legal and devoted marriage, and who transmit to their offspring a value system that is virtuous and inspiring. Fifty years of research- if not the sum of human history and experience support this truth. Gay marriage will in time join the divorce culture in confirming the wisdom of God and his decrees regarding families. The personal and social costs to these alternative lifestyle reforms will not be fully realized until it is too late, regardless of how loving and well-intentioned participants may be.
In conclusion, if we are to enter the public arena with objections to humanist and Progressivist doctrines, and to fight for worthy causes, we ought to be well prepared with spiritual and intellectual arguments that support our religious principles. I am not calling for more contention, only for better articulation of our ideals. And there are many good arguments out there for parents (and children) who will do their homework before going to school and talking with teachers.
Your children are daily immersed in secular arguments at school. You ought to know what they are and help your children think through them. Someone I deeply admire told me that her young daughter said that certainty was for fools; she learned this from her older sister who learned it in school. Do you know what your children are learning in school, particularly in the social sciences? Have you examined their texts lately, or do you just look at their grades? How fully do you discuss the school day with your children, especially you fathers? Is the watchman at the tower, where your children’s learning is concerned?
These are times when children need to know spiritually and intellectually why something is wrong; God has not left us without plenty of evidence to instill understandings of both. Authors like C.S. Lewis, and a host of others I could name, and we all could read provide us with moral arguments that stand on their own merit because they are true. In addition to scriptures, these diverse and often divinely inspired authors offer us some of the “best books” from which to seek wisdom (see D&C 109: 7). And seek it we must, for we live in an day where learning would not necessarily lead a man to truth, according to the apostle Paul (2 Timothy 3: 7).
And our on immersion in these best books may help us to better help our children stand a little taller in corners of classrooms when they stand alone for what is truly right. Thus, I encourage you to continuously pour into the hearts and minds of your children this better knowledge in order to compensate for the draining out of meaning that occurs in a Progressivist society. Such societies, as Kay Hymowitz recently wrote:
Tell kids not to judge, but not what to believe. They tell them to embrace all, but not what matters. They tell them to choose, but not why or how. In short, liberation’s children live in a culture that frees the mind and soul by emptying them.
Hymowitz, K. (2003). Liberation’s children: Parents and kids in a postmodern age. Chicago, Ill: Ivan R. Dee Publishing.
