Part 1: More than just
Tolerance?
On
October 17, The Daily Telegraph’s printed the Miranda Devine exclusive, Being Straight No Longer Normal, Students
Taught. In the article she discusses the “Proud Schools” pilot program,
which has been introduced into twelve NSW schools - implemented by Education
Minister Adrian Piccoli and its opposition from MP Fred Nile.
The
Program is based on research conducted by LaTrobe University – which suggests
that the majority of homophobic abuse and violence occurs within the school
fence. The program was “designed to stamp out homophobia, transphobia (the fear
of transsexuals) and heterosexism.”[i]
(Here heterosexism is referred to as
the classification of heterosexuality as the ‘norm’ for human relationships.)
The program involves providing professional development to teachers to assure a
supportive and safe learning environment for all students, by “ignoring,
making invisible or discriminating against non-heterosexual people, their
relationships and their interests; heterosexism feeds homophobia.”[ii]
Fred
Nile accuses the program of being “propaganda” and promises to raise such
“brainwashing of high school students” in parliament for reconsideration. Mr.
Nile says it will only cause more confusion among the young teens who already
struggle to develop themselves in their years of puberty.
There
are many areas of discussion when such controversy is raised – but I’ll
restrict myself to briefly discuss the topic of tolerance. So, what is
tolerance? Sadly tolerance does not
have a straight definition. In ethics and philosophy, however, tolerance is
generally defined as “an individual virtue, issuing from and respecting the
value of moral autonomy and acting as a sharp rein on the impulse to legislate
against morally or religiously repugnant beliefs and behaviours.”[iii]
In this sense, tolerance can be considered as acknowledging that each person
has the freedom, autonomy, to
construct their own set of moral values – and if those values do not correspond
to our own values we owe it to them to un-judgingly accept their choices. That
isn’t to say that this is unconditional acceptance, but within certain
boundaries – we accept it; put up with it: this is an element of tolerance.[iv]
Embracing
these definitions of tolerance, the “Proud School” program can be found to aim
for something more than tolerance – by shunning what it calls heterosexism. If racism is the act of
degrading another’s race, then shouldn’t the true definition of heterosexism be the degradation of a
non-heterosexual’s sexuality? Then referring to someone as a heterosexist
because they conceptualise heterosexuality as the default sexual orientation, when
acclaiming-ly (according to the La Trobe University Research) over 97% of
people are heterosexual, is by definition - wrong. To strive to change one’s state of mind – that’s more than
tolerance. To condemn a student on how they identify the world – is an attack
on their values and morals. Ironically – this is exactly what the program is
trying to eliminate.
Megan Ayre
Hi Megan,
ReplyDeleteI too came across this article and have established my own opinions. I have not tackled my blog as heavily as you in terms of ideas of tolerance, more so from the perspective that Willis (2005) talks in the beginning of his book ‘Race, Identity and Representation in Education”, regarding the role of young people as the foot soldiers of modernity.
In his novel, Willis talks of how schools are one of the principal sites for the dialectical playing out of disjunctions and contradiction, which, while misunderstood, underlie some of the most urgent education debates like traditionalism versus progressivism”. In society today, social debates regarding the status of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender community are being spurred by young people, the foot soldiers of a modern and progressive social movement that wish to remove the contradictions of traditional legislation in favour of policy that promotes the desires of a changing society, and a cultural understanding and tolerance of the rights and legitimacy of the human, regardless of their sexual preference.
Your final point: “To condemn a student on how they identify the world – is an attack on their values and morals. Ironically – this is exactly what the program is trying to eliminate” I think was well placed. While I wouldn’t say the critique of the program is an attack on GLBT student’s morals and values, I do find it ironic that as a politician, Nile’s rejection of the program because it focuses on the needs of a minority group is also ironic. I believe his position however stems from his resistance to the flows of cultural modernization because it questions legislation and social norms locked in tradition that he is culturally comfortable with.
References:
Devine, M. 17/10/2012, ‘Being straight no longer normal, students taught’,
Willis, P. (2005). Afterword: Foot soldiers of modernity: The dialectics of cultural consumption and the 21st-century school. In C. McCarthy, W. Crichlow, G. Dimitriadis, & N. Dolby (Eds.), Race, identity and representation in education (2nd Ed.), (pp.461-480), New York: Routledge.