Undermining Parents’ Authority to Teach Their Children Their Beliefs
          Another slogan moral conservatives frequently used was that the district’s policies “violate our parental rights,” on the grounds that the policies undermine their ability to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong. This is a libertarian appeal to parental autonomy—the view that “moral-political education is a private matter that should be left to parental discretion” (Howe, 1997, pp. 109-110). Concerned Citizens contend that when schools discuss differences in sexual orientation, like any “social issue,” the effect is to teach certain values best left to parents to teach their children. Thus, their authority as parents to instill in their children their belief that homosexuality is wrong is being undermined by schools that send the message “It’s okay to be gay.” Carol contends

 We’re just simply not willing to have our efforts to teach our kids our morals undermined… If [parents] feel that sending their kids to public schools is undermining their efforts they’re simply going to get out.

          Frank believes the policy “risks trampling on peoples’ rights” and Colleen believes the topic of homosexuality “shouldn’t come up. I think parent’s rights supersede state’s rights.” Another morally conservative parent warns, "If you continue down this road, you must provide an alternative for families of conscience to leave the schools and go somewhere else to educate our children in academics, not the current popular politically correct lifestyles. You are violating our First Amendment rights to teach our children and to raise them as moral human beings" (Audio taped school board meeting, May 12, 1994).

          Thus, a fear of Concerned Citizens is that the schools will send the message to their children that their parents are wrong for holding anti-gay beliefs. To this, they are opposed because they see it as a violation of the right of parents to teach their children their beliefs. When it comes to racist beliefs, however, schools are more likely to challenge them even if it sends the message to students that their parents are wrong for holding those racist beliefs.

Teacher: If you start getting into values and those issues [like mentioning when a historical figure was gay] then you start getting into territory where you have people say, “You don’t have a right to say that. You’re telling me that I’m wrong because I’ve been telling my child that this is wrong and you said it’s right.”
Ian: What if you have a child of Ku Klux Klan members and the child was spouting racist rhetoric in class and…
Teacher: We’d stop it. It would not be tolerated.
Ian: What if the child got the message that her parents are racist, that her parents are wrong for having those beliefs?
Teacher: Those are the kinds of things that would be stopped, we wouldn’t get into, and if the child persisted, the parents would be involved. The principal would be involved. We cannot tolerate that kind of rhetoric from adults or children.

          For this teacher it is more important that students get the message, “It is not okay to say racist things” even if it risks sending the message, “Your parents are wrong for saying racist things.” When it comes to disciplining students who make anti-gay remarks, however, morally conservative teachers do not want to appear to condone homosexuality and do not want to send the message, “Your parents are wrong for having anti-gay beliefs.” Thus, his argument is not so much about schools teaching values in general, but more about whose values get taught. The teacher above, by challenging racist ideas but not challenging heterosexist ideas, sends a clear message to students that it is not okay to discriminate on the basis of race but it is okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

          A teacher who opposes the policy pointed out earlier that in today’s “politically correct” world one can no longer express his or her racist beliefs without being labeled “a racist.” Likewise, as public expressions of homophobia and heterosexism become socially unacceptable, people who express their anti-gay beliefs in public will probably be seen as bigots too. Concerned Citizens told me they resent being called “bigots” and explain that they do not fear or hate gays; they simply want to preserve their First Amendment right to freedom of conscience, as well as their rights as parents to teach their children their anti-gay beliefs. Nancy mentioned that she is disheartened by accusations of homophobia leveled against people who oppose the inclusion of sexual orientation in the policies. I agree with Nancy that moral conservatives are often mislabeled as homophobes, which implies they fear and hate homosexuals. Concerned Citizens certainly did not express any outright hatred or hostility towards GLBTIQ people in my study. The moral conservative position is more appropriately labeled “heterosexist” or “heterocentrist” as it reflects the belief that everyone is and should be heterosexual.

          Carol claims to have felt anti-Christian bigotry in response to an article in the local paper in which she was quoted as opposing the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Diversity Goal. Carol explains, "The main feeling I’ve felt is a feeling of condescension that because I’m a moral person, and I’m trying to live a moral life in accordance with my conscience and the outlines that God has given in the scriptures, that I’m some kind of a narrow minded bigot. Probably the most devastating things have been those three [harassing] phone calls."

          Thus, Concerned Citizens, like Carol, find themselves in a difficult position. They do not see themselves as mean, fearful, or hostile towards GLBTIQ people. Rather, they see themselves as nice, moral and respectful individuals. They want to instill their belief in their children that homosexuality is wrong and they have the right to do that. Also, they correctly sense that the schools, increasingly, are sending the message that “It’s okay to be gay,” which conflicts with their beliefs. Furthermore, the implied message to students is, “Your parents are wrong for having anti-gay beliefs.” Concerned Citizens, then, think they come off looking like bigots in the eyes of their children and in the eyes of the public and they do not want to be seen as bigots, as Carol clearly expressed. They simply want to preserve their right to go about their lives, to teach their kids that homosexuality is wrong, and they do not want that undermined by the schools.

          In addition to morally conservative parents who feel as though the schools are against them, an assistant principal told me that some morally conservative students also claim they are suffering a form of “reverse discrimination” in that they are not allowed to express their religious beliefs, some of which are anti-gay, in school.

Asst. Principal: We’ve had complaints from students for several years that it’s not acceptable to be openly Christian in this school. You know, Buddhist is fine, Jewish is fine, but openly Christian is not acceptable here.

          With heightened public awareness of the effects of anti-gay sentiments and anti-gay bullying, such as the beating death of Matt Shepard and school shootings by gunmen who were frequently the targets of anti-gay epithets, coupled with teachers’ heightened awareness of the effects of anti-gay peer harassment of students, there are now more attempts on the part of district staff to stop and challenge incidents of anti-gay peer harassment. There may even be a bit of over zealousness in how alleged incidents of anti-gay peer harassment are handled by district staff, which might support Christian students’ contention that they are discriminated against. During my interviews, district staff were given the following scenario:

Say that in class the topic of homosexuality arises naturally out of the discussion. A Christian student raises her hand and calmly explains, “I believe that homosexuality is immoral and that gays are going to burn in hell.” Do you consider that to be harassment and how would you handle that?

          Some teachers and principals who were given this scenario responded that this example definitely would be harassment and would warrant punitive measures against the Christian student. An elementary teacher explained, "We would definitely take that child aside and say, 'This is not the right place to talk about that. If you have those feelings we’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t express them here and that you need to talk to your parents about that and if we have to we’ll bring your parents in.'”

          A principal replied, “That would not be tolerated, making that statement. And we would probably call the parents.” Other teachers, however, said this example does not constitute harassment. One teacher explained that she does not think the above scenario would be harassment but she still would not tolerate that statement from a student.

Teacher: Last year we had people from the Rape Crisis Team come and we talked about what is harassment. Under the definition we used in that I would say, “No, that wouldn’t constitute harassment because it’s not directed at anyone and it’s not repeated.” I might talk to the student after class and tell them they need to keep those thoughts to themselves and that I’m not trying to change their mind but we don’t want to know about it.
Ian: If the school sponsored panels of gay people to come in and talk about what it’s like to be gay and their beliefs, why would you tell a Christian student they can’t talk about their beliefs?
Teacher: I think that what we’re looking for here is a policy of tolerance and acceptance and one of those examples promotes tolerance and acceptance and the other one doesn’t. The people coming in and talking about what it’s like to be gay don’t say that they don’t tolerate or accept anyone. They’re just saying, “This is my experience” and sharing their experiences. On the other hand, the Christian student is being intolerant. That’s what the difference is for me.

          This teacher may be sending a confusing message to students, however, because her statement is somewhat self-contradictory. In prohibiting the Christian student from saying anything negative about homosexuality on the grounds that the Christian student is being intolerant, the teacher, herself, is being intolerant.

           A high school math teacher, who was asked if the scenario would entail harassment, responded, "probably not because if we’re discussing it, then there is something implied there that kids should feel safe to share their beliefs. I think if I were encouraging a kid to talk about it then it seems to me you ought to be open to ideas, even ideas that you don’t agree with. No, I wouldn’t think of that as harassment. On the other hand, if a student in the hall were pointing and said, 'You’re gonna burn in hell because you’re a homosexual!' that’s a whole different context and I’d say that’s definitely harassment."

A guidance counselor replied, "That’s a tough one because someone’s giving their opinion. I don’t know. It’s a class discussion so I don’t know if I would call it harassment. Now if they kept saying it and trying to monopolize the discussion or kept bringing it up out of context, then yes, it’s harassment."

          Thus, district staff have differing opinions of what harassment entails and when student speech amounts to harassment or not. This may lead to unequal enforcement from teacher to teacher and may give students the impression that certain teachers are punishing students based on the teacher’s own personal biases about homosexuality or religion. Moreover, given that some teachers invite GLBTIQ speakers into their classes, it may also seem to the students and parents who oppose homosexuality that GLBTIQ people are being privileged over Christian students whose beliefs and opinions are sometimes squelched and excluded from the discussion. Federal guidelines for talking about religion in public schools, however, make it clear that religion can be discussed in public schools and, indeed, it often is. Religion, including Christianity, is discussed informally amongst students and formally in class discussions especially in history, civics, and world religion classes.

           Thus, Concerned Citizens feel they are the victims of anti-Christian bigotry. Fraser (1999) concurs this is a common sentiment expressed by moral conservatives nationwide. He states members of this group "tend to feel discriminated against… They feel modernity is against them-in matters dealing with sex, crime, pornography, education… many felt themselves to be victims of ‘anti-Christian bigotry’” (p. 186). Apple and Oliver (1996) explain that moral conservatives attribute all of the nation’s problems to moral decay and that these larger concerns are linked with “what counts as ‘legitimate’ content in schools” (p. 424). Thus, moral conservatives see the secular public schools as “a site of immense danger” (p. 428). Furthermore, explain Apple and Oliver, “in the minds of conservatives, raising these objections is not censorship; it is protecting the entire range of things that are at the center of their being” (p. 429). Congruent with this, Carol explained, "I’m a student of history and in every other society where homosexuality became normal and accepted and just another lifestyle that was one of the signs of its eventual collapse. I don’t like what is happening to the family today. I live my life thinking about my grandchildren and great grandchildren and what kind of a life are they going to live? I think for the sake of holding onto the things that I hold dear, morality and a belief in God, that I simply had to speak [at the school board meeting]."

           Perhaps no other issue raises the concerns of morally conservative individuals more than does the legitimation of homosexuality, or its presentation as being equal to heterosexuality or being socially acceptable. The reason is that a heterosexual identity is tied in with many other identities at a very fundamental level. To challenge moral conservative’s worldview about the superiority of heterosexuality is to challenge their worldviews of what it means to be a man or a woman, a husband or a wife, a family, a Christian, and even a human. Thus, assaults on the normative dignity of heterosexuality are assaults on the core beliefs, the bottom line, of moral conservatives’ identities. Relatively recently a body of literature in education known as “Queer Theory” has taken a postmodern approach in explaining the importance of identity and why the deconstruction of identity can be such a terrifying process (Pinar, 1998).

           Moral conservatives fear that an effect of the policies will be to give GLBTIQ students and adults special rights while stripping the rights of moral conservatives to hold and express beliefs that run counter to portraying GLBTIQ lifestyles in a neutral or positive fashion. These fears are apparent in moral conservatives’ claims about the presumed existence of a national gay agenda. Though most Concerned Citizens did not reference the gay agenda in their interviews with me, much of what they said parallels moral conservatives’ concerns about a “gay agenda” at the national level. In a June 1999 letter on “the gay agenda” I found on the P.E.R.S.O.N. Project website, California State Assemblyman, Steve Baldwin, states that “gay students are already thoroughly covered by existing law” and that the inclusion of sexual orientation in school policies is simply a tactic to promote GLBTIQ lifestyles through hiring quotas for gay teachers and curricular inclusion of GLBTIQ people and perspectives, all of which portray homosexuality in a positive fashion (Baldwin, 2000). Moreover, claims Baldwin, the policies “will freeze all speech that is viewed as ‘hostile’ by the gay community.” Baldwin asserts that a teacher could be fired if he or she “mentions that the Bible considers homosexuality to be sinful behavior” and that a health teacher would not be able to give factual information such as “Anal intercourse by male homosexuals leads more than any other practice of sex that we know about to the incidence of AIDS” because it would be seen as presenting homosexuality in a negative light and as being discriminatory against gays. Neither of these claims is tenable, however, as both are examples of teachers stating factual evidence and not examples of using personal opinion to put gays in a negative light.

           Baldwin’s letter also touches on themes of pedophilia, homosexuality as a behavioral choice (implying that GLBTIQ people simply need not choose to be GLBTIQ), and the assertion that the average life span of a gay male is shorter than other peoples’ life spans. He then asks, “Why would any school district want to send a message to our youth that this life style is ok?” He calls on schools to “bring in counselors who specialize in counseling gay students to return to the heterosexual lifestyle.” The problem with these assertions—that homosexuals are pedophiles, sexual orientation is a personal choice, and the average life span of a gay male is shorter than for others—is that they are based on false premises that have no scientific validity or basis in the lived experiences of GLBTIQ people.

           Concerned Citizens also expressed similar stereotypes and misinformation in this case study. Carol was the most forthright in her stereotypes of GLBTIQ people. She mentioned that the author of a book she read thinks, "…the one thing that all gay and lesbian people have in common is they were molested as children and they become confused about their sexual orientation. [She goes on to explain that GLBTIQ people] suffer from this sexual addiction and it literally overtakes their life… We have devalued our food. We eat white flour; we take the seeds out of our fruits and vegetables and eat all processed and chemicalized foods. [The author of a book I read] believes that this contributes to homosexuality simply because there’s just not enough physical there to have a normal heterosexual life… I think a whole generation or two were born in the 40s and 50s and the babies did not bond with their mothers and they were not breast fed and I think that this unnatural beginning of life kind of perpetuated some unnatural behavior later on… I think there is also some evidence that gay men have not bonded well with their fathers… For the most part [gays] don’t reproduce themselves, some do but most don’t, and to raise their numbers there’s a lot of recruitment going on… [being GLBTIQ] I think leads to a lot of depression and it’s just a hard life."

          Carol said that for eight years she belonged to a Religious Right organization, bought one of its books, and received its newsletters. Much of Carol’s information about GLBTIQ people came from morally conservative books and organizations. I gave Carol a related example of going to the Ku Klux Klan for information on African American people and asked her if she thought the information she received from the morally conservative organizations was perhaps biased against GLBTIQ people. She responded, “Everybody is biased. God is biased. God is prejudiced against certain lifestyles and behaviors. [These organizations and books] line up with my beliefs and practices as a Mormon.” Carol went on to say, “I’m for equal rights under the Constitution, not special rights.” I asked her, then, if she supported same-sex marriage and she replied, “No, because it undermines my religion.” When confronted with the prospect that her expressed belief of “equal rights” contradicted her stance on same-sex marriage, she responded, "I can see where someone would see that as being contradictory. But to have a civilization, and for me civilization is all about children, there needs to be some standard of family life—a husband, a wife, and children. Same-sex marriage frustrates the foundation of society."

          Thus, moral conservatives see society’s acceptance of GLBTIQ people and GLBTIQ lifestyles as the end to their traditional religious way of life and give many reasons, most often based on misinformation and fear (Silin, 1995), to try and stop GLBTIQ people from attaining equality. They believe the social acceptance of homosexuality will corrupt our society. Though moral conservatives frequently proclaim they believe in equal rights, upon further examination it is clear that they really only want rights for themselves and for those with whom they agree.

             Summary of the Interpretation of Concerned Citizens’ Beliefs
          Since the formation of this country, and still today, Christians have been the dominant religious group with much socio-cultural and political power. On what grounds do morally conservative parents and students claim they are being discriminated against? My research reveals that these morally conservative students and parents are reacting to a change in public opinion about the acceptability of publicly expressed views that are intolerant of homosexuality. Opponents consistently recalled the “good old days” when people could say and think what they wanted without fear of being labeled a racist or homophobe. Whereas people could publicly express their anti-gay beliefs, and still can to a large extent, without public scorn for being intolerant of differences, it is becoming less socially acceptable to express anti-gay beliefs in public and in schools. As Carol explained to me, those who do come off looking like “bigots.” Thus, Concerned Citizens and others opposed to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the policies feel they can neither hold nor express their anti-gay beliefs, nor instill them in their children because it is becoming less socially acceptable to hold anti-gay beliefs. Thus, modernity truly is against them.

           Interestingly, Concerned Citizens do not acknowledge that schools currently promote heterosexuality over all other sexual orientations by including heterosexual literature and math word problems, for instance, and by excluding any mention of GLBTIQ people and perspectives from the curriculum. For them, the promotion of heterosexuality as superior seems natural, normal and goes unquestioned. This could be explained as Concerned Citizens’ “reality of everyday life.” That is, Concerned Citizens’ intersubjective understandings of the superiority of heterosexuality seem self-evident. When called into question by the HPSSC demanding equal recognition for GLBTIQ students, this presents a threat to their worldview and their privilege as heterosexuals. Thus, when GLBTIQ advocates suggest that homosexuality also should be promoted as natural and normal along with heterosexuality, it seems to Concerned Citizens that GLBTIQ advocates are asking for “special rights” when, in reality, GLBTIQ advocates are asking for equal treatment. Moreover, it seems to Concerned Citizens that they are now being discriminated against because their expressed anti-gay beliefs are coming under scrutiny, whereas previously, it was accepted that Christian and other students and teachers could make anti-gay comments without fear of criticism or punishment.

           In sum, an interpretation of Concerned Citizen’s slogans and worldviews reveals that Concerned Citizens believe that peer harassment should be stopped but that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the district’s policies has the effect of legitimating homosexuality as normal and promoting homosexuality as socially acceptable, thus sending the message to students “It’s okay to be gay.” They believe schools should downplay differences between people and not acknowledge GLBTIQ orientations and identities because acknowledgement leads to legitimation. Also, acknowledging a homosexual orientation runs the risk of defending or condoning it. Another way Concerned Citizens attempt to prevent the acknowledgement of sexual orientation differences is to assert that schools should not teach social issues like sexual orientation and should instead focus on academics. Concerned Citizens resent being portrayed as bigots and homophobes in the eyes of the public, and in the eyes of their children who receive conflicting messages about homosexuality from their parents and schools. Concerned Citizens simply want to preserve their rights to hold their beliefs and instill them in their children. They believe their parental rights are being violated. They feel they are being discriminated against and that GLBTIQ people are getting special rights. They believe this will lead to the social acceptance of homosexuality as normal and will eventually result in the downfall of society.

            The Legitimation and Promotion of Homosexuality
          Before I apply my guiding framework and discuss the conclusions of this research one question remains that first needs to be addressed: Will the inclusion of sexual orientation in the district’s policies, in effect, ultimately help to legitimate and promote homosexuality as opponents claim? I believe the answer is a strong “probably.” History has shown, as de-segregation exemplifies, that laws and policies that prohibit discriminatory behavior probably play a hand in transforming social norms and attitudes. Long ago, during the congressional debates on slavery, legislators realized that if they conceded that slavery was a legitimate topic to debate, it would be the first step down a slippery slope that would end the institution of slavery and change society. To simply talk about slavery was too dangerous in their minds (Calhoun, 1994).

           Essentially, this is the crux of the matter for this case study. Opponents attribute society’s problems to moral decay and lament a romanticized conception of the past where good “old-fashioned values” guided peoples’ actions, rather than current “politically correct” dictates. It was considered impolite to bring up such topics as racism and sexism, while homosexuality was completely taboo. Moral conservatives long for the “civil society” of days gone by but fail to recognize that what was passing for civility was actually a complex set of power relations that privileged heterosexuals, the wealthy, men, whites, and Protestants while silencing and disempowering GLBTIQ people, the poor, women, people of color, non-Protestants, and the disabled. What they mistook for “civility” was actually an imposed silence on anyone who would dare speak up and challenge the status quo. Those who did question systems of privilege and oppression were branded “uncivil” and, thus, dismissed. Opponents of equality for GLBTIQ people often frame advocates of equality for GLBTIQ people as “radicals,” thus giving the dominant heterosexual majority a reason to dismiss and ignore GLBTIQ peoples’ claims of unequal treatment. Apple (1992) explains how this process works to “disenfranchise” GLBTIQ peoples’ cultural capital while “enfranchising” moral conservatives’ cultural capital (p. 26).

           Modernity is against moral conservatives and homosexuality is no longer the taboo subject it once was. GLBTIQ identities are increasingly becoming normalized and celebrated in popular culture (with television shows like Will and Grace), institutions of education (with bachelor’s degrees in Gay and Lesbian Studies), and even some religious faiths that openly welcome GLBTIQ worshippers. We have progressed as a society and our civility is now being measured in how we recognize systems of power and oppression that silenced people in the past and how we work to change established norms so that no one is disenfranchised from society. Those who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds fear this change in public and political opinion that homosexuality is becoming socially acceptable. Opponents fear they are now the ones who will be stigmatized for having intolerant beliefs about GLBTIQ people. On the other side, advocates believe we have not come far enough and that it is still too dangerous to acknowledge that the legitimation and promotion of homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality, with equal rights under the law, are the ultimate goals of the GLBTIQ rights movement (i.e., the “gay agenda”). Antidiscrimination legislation and school non-discrimination policies help ensure neutrality by putting all people on an equal playing field so that no one is disenfranchised from the social, political, and economic processes that affect their lives and their ability to choose for themselves conceptions of the good. Below, I have summarized the implications, interpretations, and conclusions of this study. Discussion follows.

           (1) One way of assuring educational equity for GLBTIQ students is through non-discrimination policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with sufficient training and curricular materials for district staff to be able to implement and enforce the policy.
           (2) The government, including schools, rightly advocate democracy and the equal treatment of GLBTIQ people. In keeping with the spirit of neutrality, the legitimation and promotion of homosexuality as a socially acceptable lifestyle are not goals of governmental antidiscrimination legislation or school non-discrimination policy. Rather, the goal of such laws is to ensure neutrality by keeping discussions as to the social acceptability of homosexuality out of the hands of government officials and in the hands of the people to decide for themselves.
           (3) As a secondary consequence, however, the inclusion of sexual orientation in school policies probably helps legitimate and promote homosexuality as being as good as and/or equal to heterosexuality in the mind of the public. It does not promote one over the other, but puts them on equal ground. Even so, raising homosexuality to the same level of social acceptance as heterosexuality does not violate the principle of neutrality but ensures it.
           (4) The legitimation and promotion of homosexuality as being equal to and/or as good as heterosexuality probably makes it more difficult for morally conservative parents to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong, thus undermining their authority. It may even make morally conservative parents look like bigots in the eyes of their children and of the more tolerant public. However, the right of morally conservative parents not to look like bigots does not supersede the right of GLBTIQ students to educational equity.
           (5) Simply including sexual orientation in district policies and talking about homosexuality in class does not force anyone to “value homosexuality.” People are free to hold whatever beliefs they want about homosexuality. People may not, however, silence those with whom they disagree. All students have First Amendment rights to freedoms of conscience and expression and the district’s policies do not limit those rights, but ensure them.
           (6) Teachers, likewise, are free to hold anti-gay beliefs. Teachers may not, however, express their anti-gay, anti-Christian, racist, or sexist beliefs in the classroom because of the special relationship between teacher and student. Teachers, as officials of the school, must remain neutral on such issues in the classroom. In this respect, teachers’ First Amendment rights are somewhat limited in the classroom, and rightfully so.
           (7) Schools should remain neutral on issues of religion and sexual orientation. This does not mean that schools should exclude these issues but that schools should include multiple views and allow students to express their own opinions on these issues. Schools should not remain neutral, however, on the issue of extending equal rights to all people regardless of their religion or sexual orientation.
           (8) The policies prohibit certain behaviors and leave beliefs up to the individual to choose. Every person will continue to live his or her life the way he or she wants to the extent that is possible without violating the rights of others.

Conclusion
          School non-discrimination nbsp; School non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity ensure neutrality through prohibiting the exclusion of GLBTIQ students’ voices. Given the current inability of GLBTIQ students to speak out because of fear of retribution, coupled with the exclusion of GLBTIQ people and perspectives from the curriculum, schools have not assumed a neutral stance. Not talking about GLBTIQ people and perspectives, when schools currently talk about heterosexual people and perspectives, does not equal neutrality—it equals exclusion. Neutrality requires that GLBTIQ students be afforded the same educational opportunities afforded heterosexual students. One way of assuring this is through non-discrimination policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with sufficient training and curricular materials for district staff to be able to implement and enforce the policy.

           The inclusion of sexual orientation in the district’s policies also helps bring about and ensure neutrality in the sense that it gives a legal guarantee to GLBTIQ students that they may exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of conscience and expression. Moreover, the district’s policies guarantee that ALL students have this right, including morally conservative students. All students have the right to express their opinions in school but no student has the right for his or her expressed opinions to go unchallenged by others. That is the nature of living under the First Amendment. In other words, morally conservative students have the right to express their anti-gay beliefs in school as long as they do not create a hostile or intimidating environment. Likewise, GLBTIQ students have the right to express their pro-gay beliefs as long as they do not create a hostile or intimidating environment. Neither side, however, has the right to have their opinions go unchallenged by the other side. Reciprocity ensures neutrality. Currently, GLBTIQ students are not ensured a safe school environment where they can express their opinions in school to the extent that other groups of students can.

           I believe it is fair to acknowledge that such policies may, and probably will, have the effect of helping to change peoples’ hearts and minds (their beliefs) about the social acceptability of homosexuality. The main point is, however, that the policies help students to understand that ALL students, including GLBTIQ students, deserve equality of educational opportunity and equal rights in general. To this, Concerned Citizens cannot legitimately object because the rights they would deny GLBTIQ people are the same rights that allow them to object in the first place. To avoid hypocrisy Concerned Citizens need to respect the rights of GLBTIQ students and truly support equal rights for all people, even those with whom they disagree.

           Concerned Citizens may rightly teach their children, within their homes and churches, that homosexuality is wrong. I concede that their ability to do so may be undermined by schools that teach students that GLBTIQ people deserve equal rights. However, claiming that the district’s policies undermine their ability to teach their children their beliefs is an attempt to extend their parental authority into the classroom and, to this, they have no right. Schools also have a responsibility to GLBTIQ parents and GLBTIQ students. If moral conservatives are dissatisfied with public education, then they have the right to home school their children or enroll them in private schools that teach their morally conservative values.

           The district’s policies do not favor one group of people over another, but simply put all individuals on equal legal footing. In this way, the district ensures neutrality and leaves it to parents on all sides of the issue to teach their children their beliefs. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, cited in Fraser (1999)

reminded Americans that Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, including in the United States. [Douglas stated] ‘in time Moslems will control some of our school boards. In time devout Moslems may want their prayer in our schools; and if Protestant sects can get their prayers past the barriers of the First Amendment, the same passage would be guaranteed for Moslems.’ (p.234)

          The point is that “a democratic society cannot have one group of citizens who define the culture for others. All citizens must together shape the culture” (Fraser, J. W., 1999, p. 235). For GLBTIQ students to be able to shape the culture of which they are a part, they must be guaranteed a seat at the table along with those who would exclude them.