Joe Quigley, teacher

Directory xCalendar xPersonal Homepages of GLBT Oklahomans xAIDS & Health Info xSearch xChat xGaywire Network News
		Joe Quigley, teacherxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Part Three
Written by Joe Quigley
(Posted 12-6-00)
Part One / Part Two / Part Three / Part Four / Part Five

The next morning
as I was getting ready for school I turned on the news from another station in time to hear the district's spokesperson report that the district had met with me and I had agreed to return to the curriculum and remove the poster from the room. The poster was referred to as a "mural" which to me implied it was much more than it really was. I called that news outlet and was assured anything said in the report by a reporter or an anchor was based on what they had been told by the district. I noted that during the report the spokesperson kept squinting in the sun light which made it obvious that she was interviewed the afternoon before when I was unable to contact her.

Upon my arrival at school that morning I found three letters in my mailbox: one from the dean of instruction, dated two days before and confirming the time of our 8:45 am meeting the previous day, which also included a request for a copy of my course syllabus, a letter from the principal stating that the dean would no longer be the one to evaluate my teaching performance, but that that duty had been assigned to an assistant principal, and the third from the principal informing me that he had removed items from my classroom in the presence of two witnesses, and that I could retrieve them from the office upon request. The items removed were anything that had a rainbow on them. The supposed huge chain had been removed with my permission by another teacher that I had called the night of the televised news report. This was done at the request of the union. Ironically the one item I thought would be removed, but was left behind, was my little Tinky-Winky statuette. Some Gay and Lesbian reference books that contained material of interest to Gay and Lesbian teens, as well as their straight friends, and which I had on a bookshelf by my desk had been rifled through and clumsily replaced The students in my first hour class bluntly asked me if the administation had the right to remove the poster, which they saw as an attack on freedom of speech. We discussed that a little, but I endeavored to be neither judgemental nor lead them to think a particular way. They also were concerned that the student had said anything at all on television, and I explained that if we were truly concerned about freedom of speech, then we had to accept that she exercised hers. The only limit is to knowingly lie. Their concern was that she had because she said I was teaching Homosexuality in class and that she did not see why I could do that while she was forbidden to bring her Bible to class. To my students these were lies.

Another concern expressed to me later came from a Jewish parent who told me in the past year she had gone to the same assistant principal to whom the complaint about my poster was brought because of a Christmas Crib displayed in her daughter's math class. She was told to be more tolerant. And in another case, when her daughter complained to this same assistant principal in the spring that this same math class had a cross in it with the words, "He is risen", she had been told that teachers could hang whatever they wanted in their rooms. Obviously the actions of the administrators in my case lacked purity of intention.

When I went to the office with the building union representative to retrieve the removed items I found they were not available, but locked in an assistant principal's office closet.

Later that same day I received yet another letter, this one setting up a conference for that Friday afternoon and requesting that I bring a copy of my syllabus with me. This would be the meeting at which I was to receive the reprimand.

The president of the union chose to be my representative at the meeting, as he knew about my work with the diversity committee and had been involved in the fiasco of the few days before, when someone had called the parent about my impending reprimand and the local television station aired the story. I had brought my syllabus with me, but it was not to be asked for. Instead we sat opposite the dean of students and the assistant principal to whom the one student out of the original three, the one student out of over 150 in my classes, the one student out of a student body of well over 1400 who had complained about my poster.

After the obligatory introduction and politeness, I was handed the reprimand that contained two sections, read it, signed it, and left.

The first part of the reprimand charged me with willful neglect of duty and failure to follow a directive. The complaint was now referred to as "complaints", and the one student had become "some". Also, I was accused of not following a directive as I had been "requested" to remove the poster, but had not followed the "directive". I was warned that any future failure to follow directives could result in loss of employment.

The second part was based on instructuional ineffectiveness. Among the charges that were the basis of this were that my intention to help the self-esteem of my Gay and Lesbian students was noble, but their self-esteem is not my concern, I did not recognize the interests of my "other" students, I did not include people of various ethnic and racial groups on the list, which was a violation of my syllabus, the list was not curriculum specific, and that I did not represent the other side of this controversial topic. My approach, in short, was not balanced. Again there was a threat to employment.

I immediately filed a grievance and contacted some of the national Gay and Lesbian groups to seek their help in this matter. The only group who responded was the ACLU of Oklahoma, all other groups either not responding, or saying that unless it was a definite win they could not gamble their resources. So it was just me and AFT.

The points of the grievance dealing with the charge of "willful neglect of duty" were these: The number of complaints and complainants changed, and at no time was I allowed to face the complainant or complainants. In all related correspondence, including the reprimand itself, it clearly states that I was "asked" or "requested" which does not constitute a directive. These issues were contractual. However, it was the second part of the reprimand, the part dealing with "instructional ineffectiveness", that went beyond contract, and to me expressed the very prejudice and attitude I was attempting to get the district to recognize and address for the last few years.

The self-esteem of the Gay and Lesbian students was not my responsibility, yet teachers are constantly given inservices on student self-esteem and are made aware that that is one of their concerns. Did this mean only the self-esteem of straight students was a responsibility?

I did not recognize the interests of my other students. Yet, this was a school that has Homecoming Queen, Best Couple contests, various religious and ethnic clubs, Fellowship of Christian athletes, Campus for Christ, morning Bible study, on and on. But, one poster is too much?

My list was not multi-cultural in spite of including Native-Americans, African-American, Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. Thus, it violated my syllabus. A point made more interesting on two counts, not only did I not as yet present my syllabus, but three days after receiving the reprimand I was "directed" to submit it. The list contained people who were not specific to the curriculum. This may have been true, but there are lots of classrooms where teachers for decoration or self-esteem building hang posters that feature people or characters not directly related to the subject matter: Martin Luther King Jr. in science classes, Snoopy extolling the virtues of having a nice day, a list of famous women in an English class to present young women with positive role models, and so on. I did not present a well balanced approach as I did not provide students with varied viewpoints or the other side of the controversial issue. First, I did not see this information as controversial, but, rather, informative. In the Bible Belt, anti-Gay rhetoric is constant without the requirement to present the opposing view. Would this mean that in any topic presented the teacher must present the opposing view, resulting in a Klan display during Black History month?

The long and short of this section of the reprimand came down to the simple premise that any positive information about Gay and Lesbian people was too much information, and that in spite of all the heterosexual school sponsored activities and the constant promotion of the Christian-Heterosexual Ideal, one positive mention of Gay and Lesbian people constituted a threat to that and would be able to wipe it out completely. Although flattered, I do not see us as having that great a power.

After consulting with the deputy superintendent, the union was convinced the grievance would be settled within weeks. The union had to ensure that it was clear that it's interests lie in having the reprimand removed from my file as it violated the contract, and if this was not dealt with, any teacher could be reprimanded on the basis of a student complaint without the exercise of the right to face the complainant. Being the Bible Belt, any impression that the union was fighting for Gay rights could result in a potentially massive drop in union membership resulting in a weakened union. Not a good thing for anyone concerned.

Click here for page 2

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO FRONT PAGE