by Laurie Higgins, Director, Division of School Advocacy, IFI
On October 22, the Chicago Board of Education will consider a controversial proposal that has been approved by Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan to “create a new high school campus to address the needs of the underserved population of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth and their allies.”
All public schools receive state funds, so it is not just Chicagoans who will be subsidizing the Social Justice High School-Pride Campus. If the Chicago Board of Education votes in favor of this school, all Illinois taxpayers are going to be forced to support a school whose curricula and policies subvert a proper and traditional understanding of sexuality.
The creation of a school with this particular mission requires public educators to accept unproven theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality and gender confusion, both of which are questions that stand far outside the purview of public educators.
In recommending approval of this school, Duncan has necessarily accepted the arguable presuppositions that homosexuality is biologically determined and morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Had he concluded otherwise, he would never have recommended approval of this school, even to make students “safe.” Had he concluded that homosexuality is neither biologically determined, nor moral, he would not have recommended a special school dedicated to affirming homosexuality. Instead, he would attempt to find ways to ensure student safety without affirming behavior.
To see that this claim is true, one need only imagine Duncan being approached by a group of polyamorous teens who feel stigmatized in their public schools. They don’t like being stared at or teased, and they prefer to be with others like themselves. Moreover, they fear they may someday be the victims of violence.
Does anyone think that Duncan would respond to a high school for polyamorists as he did to the idea of a high school for homosexuals: “Given how large and diverse we are, I think there’s a niche there.”
Of course, he wouldn’t. He wouldn’t because, at least for now, society largely holds the moral conviction that polyamory is immoral, even if biology influences desire, and even if polyamorists love their partners, and even if their relationships are consensual, and even if their relationships don’t directly harm anyone else. Duncan wouldn’t consider opening such a high school even to ensure that these students feel welcome and safe.
It is not the proper role of public educators to make judgments about the nature and morality of homosexuality; nor is it proper to use public funds to advance such divisive and arguable propositions. For Duncan to draw such conclusions and recommend the use of public funds to subsidize the advancement of his conclusions represents remarkable hubris and violates the public trust.
Will the board of education also consider a high school for students who are harassed for myriad other reasons, most of which, unlike homosexuality and “transgenderism,” have no moral implications?
Will the board of education and administrators in this high school allot equal time and equivalent resources to all sides of the cultural debate on homosexuality and “transgenderism”?
Will they ensure that curricula that address these topics are unbiased, or will they permit only biased curricula that exclusively affirm controversial, unproven theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality? Will they censor conservative resources on homosexuality and “transgenderism”?
How will the faculty and administration teach critical thinking skills on the divisive issue of homosexuality and gender identity disorder if they have previously committed only to affirm homosexuality and “transgenderism” as normative and morally defensible?
Are the board of education and administration prepared to provide justifications and evidence for claims that homosexuality is biologically determined or that disapproval of homosexual behavior constitutes bullying?
Are the board of education and administration prepared to provide justifications and evidence for the implicit claim that volitional behavioral choices that may emerge from biologically influenced impulses are inherently moral?
Are they prepared to apply consistently to all behaviors the principle that disapproval of behavior makes students "unsafe"? Are they willing to claim that all statements of disapproval of conduct constitute incitements to violence or hatred?
It is an outrage that Mr. Duncan would recommend and the board of education consider using the hard-earned money of Illinois taxpayers to subsidize a school whose curricula will violate fundamental educational principles regarding intellectual diversity that give public education legitimacy. And it is an outrage that Mr. Duncan and the board would consider using public funds to undermine the values of many members of the community who supply those funds.
If this school is approved, it will become obvious to all that the propagation of controversial, unproven socio-political theories has replaced academic inquiry as the guiding principle of the Chicago Board of Education.
