EventsxDirectoryxCalendarxPersonal Websites of GLBT OklahomansxAIDS & Health InfoxSearchxChatxMessage BoardxAdvertise

Support GayOKC.com! Donate here!		 Quigley - update on The Bulletin Board


Get on the list!
Enter your email address here to join GayOKC.com's
mailing list!

What do you think?
CLICK HERE
to post your opinion on GayOKC.com's Message Board!

 x

The following is an email from Joe Quigley. "Skip", mentioned below, is the president of the state teacher's union.
(Posted 4-22-02)

  this is long, but it HAS been a while. Edgar Allen Poe said things should be written in such a way as they can be read in one sitting. He never did say how long a person should sit.
Joe 



As I mentioned when we presented the principal of NWClassen with the bulletin board bearing the plaque with the saying, “GIFT OF GAY AND LESBIAN ALUMNI OF OKLAHOMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS”,  I would not be so naive as to think that everything would be fine.
     On the positive side there have been instances where students (straight) have come to me asking permission to hang something on the “GAY BULLETIN BOARD” as if I were in charge of all things Gay on campus, and as a result of which I have explained that WE donated it for the use of everyone, getting in a little sarcastic dig that unlike the majority and dominant population we as Gays and Lesbians accept everyone regardless.
     A very shy student who is not really into school came to me the other day between classes and quietly told me that just like I was on the front page of the GAYLY a few weeks ago, her mother had been on the front page a little while back. It was the first time she told anyone at school, and she was proud of her mother having been there..
     On Friday (04/19/02) before classes as I was reading the Daily Oklahoman (something I do everyday to know what they are thinking and what they want others to think) another student came into my room asking, “Okay, I have looked for it everywhere. Where is OUR bulletin board?”. She was beaming and giggled a little when she called it “Our Bulletin Board”. I told her where it was exactly and she was a little embarrasssed that she had passed it so many times, but hadn’t really looked at it. I did tell her not to forget that we had to share it with everyone. She then went to get her friends so they could go check it out.
     But, it seems to be the principal who has a little bit of a problem, not so much with its existence, but with its true purpose.
     Let me explain.

     There are always those students who, having the need to boost their self esteem, feel that the quickest and easiest way to do so is to tear down someone else. It is a lot easier pointing out someone else’s faults to the attention of others than to actually do the work of bettering themselves. And, so it is that there are always those who throw out the word “Faggot” because it makes them feel superior to their target.
     In my experience at NWClassen students have done it running down the hall as they passed my room which because of the location of my classroom is a pretty safe thing to do as by the time I got to the door, if I even did that, they would be around a corner and unidentifiable from any other kid who might happen to be in the hall there. On the way to the bus stop after school I have occasionally been called “faggot” from  passing cars going about 40 mph up May Ave.
    Although this may make the person feel courageous and give them the opportunity to  brag to their friends that they called the Gay Teacher “faggot”, it is, if one considers it, an act of cowardice.
     The other day an incident happened as I was on my way from school. I decided to dis-empower the word by describing the situation and revealing it for what it was.
     And so I hung the following on my classroom door.

                                          FAGGOT
                                    BUNDLE OF WOOD
                                   ENGLISH CIGARETTE
                                         BASSOON

THE OTHER DAY AS I WAS WALKING HOME FROM SCHOOL AND JUST PASSING CLEVELAND ELEMENTARY, A STUDENT FROM NORTHWEST CLASSEN APPROACHED ME ON HIS BICYCLE. YOU MAY KNOW HIM. HE HAS LONG BLOND HAIR, USUALLY PULLED BACK IN A PONY TAIL WITH HIS SIDEBURNS SHAVED BACK TO ABOUT HIS EARS. AS WE PASSED EACH OTHER I NODDED MY HEAD SAYING, ”HI. HOW’S IT GOIN ?”, TO WHICH HE REPLIED WITHOUT SLOWING DOWN, “FAGGOT”, AND KEPT ON PEDALING. I KNOW THAT THE WORD “FAGGOT” IS GENERALLY USED TO IMPLY THAT THE ONE TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED IS SOMEHOW INFERIOR TO AND MUCH WEAKER THAN THE ONE USING IT, BUT I HAVE TO WONDER HOW MUCH COURAGE IT TAKES TO USE THE WORD ONLY WHEN THERE IS A GUARANTEED MEANS OF SWIFT ESCAPE, RATHER THAN TO DISMOUNT THE BIKE AND STAND FACING THE TARGET AND BEING ABLE TO HANDLE ANY RESPONSE. IF THIS EXCHANGE WAS MEANT TO BE A DEMONSTRATION OF COURAGE AND STRENGTH, WHERE WAS THE COURAGE AND STRENGTH DISPLAYED BY THE PERSON ON THE BICYCLE? I AM SURE THIS STUDENT WILL BRAG TO HIS FRIENDS THAT HE CALLED A TEACHER “FAGGOT”, BUT I WONDER IF HE WILL  INCLUDE THE MINOR, BUT TELLING DETAIL THAT HE WAS ONLY WILLING TO DO IT PROVIDED HE WAS ON A MOVING BICYCLE.

 The message of the narrative was not lost on the students who read it, and even the fundamentalist teachers got the point.
     However, after the third day it was hanging, a union reprsentative came to my room. He had received a phone call from the principal who claimed that I had violated all agreements reached in mediation because in spite of the bulletin board, I had hung something Gay related on my door.
     In spite of there being no connection, and I verified this with the mediator, the principal is under the impression that once the bulletin board went up nothing GLBT related could go up anywhere else in the building, specifically my room.
   But, I do not recall that anywhere in the discussions leading up to and including the hanging of the bulletin board was it mentioned that the bulletin board was in exchange for self-censorship. Apparently, however, this was in the principal’s mind, and could, perhaps, explain his entusiastic reception of the bulletin board.
    I explained the purpose of the narrative to the union representative, but received this the following day from the principal:

    "You are directed to remove by 2:40 PM today any posted materials on your door or any other classroom area location which do not meet the criteria in J.Posting of Bills in the 2001-02 Faculty handbook (In actuality, he neglected to add that to the handbook when it was revised this past summer, and was forced to hand copies of the original memo out to faculty). If you wish to discuss this issue I will do so in the conference which I requested with you in in the memo placed in you mailbox on Wednesday, April 17, 2002" (I got it when I went to my mailbox as I was leaving at the end of that day.)

I responded by writing the following on the bottom of a copy of his memo, making a copy which he picked up from his in-box in my presence as well as his secretary's.

"The narrative will be removed by 2:40 PM 4/18/02 as per your directive.
    I am sure, in spite of my informal and unofficial survey of some members of the faculty to the contrary, this policy is being universally applied with equal vigor to all faculty members and is not related solely to me or the subject matter?
     I am also encouraged by your concern for what the narrative relates as opposed to your being solely concerned about a policy selectively applied.
     Between the violation of a policy and the violation of a faculty member by a student, I am a little confused at the attention given solely to need to remove a poster with none given to the assault.
     As for meeting today, there is a meeting of the English Department at 2:20 today. Perhaps we can meet on Monday" (pardon my sarcasm).

 The principal is not concerned with the incident, he is only concerned that I did not ask his permission before posting anything, and this he feels is a violation of the mediation. But I still am the only person held to this policy in practice as many can attest. The action was taken to dis-empower the word and to show that it is a word used by cowards in cowardly circumstances. But, again, the principal is only dealing with the policy.

Here is the policy. You can see it is unreasonable. The asterixes are mine.

"Anyone wishing to post or display any promotional materials, advertisements, meeting announcements, motivational sayings, signs, or posters, or informational signs or posters in their classroom shall request and receive permission * from the principal or principal's designee prior** to displaying any such material. The principal will only consider approval of those materials which relate to instruction, curriculum, the course syllabus, extra-curricular or co-curricular activities, and those materials which generally promote school activities or relate to the courses being taught"***

* Although it says "shall request AND receive", I was told on more than one occasion I could not hang something. I asked, but did not receive.
** On more than one occaision when I pointed out a religious poster in a teacher's (non-union) classroom hung without prior permission, he granted post-facto permission.
*** people have Snoopy, Garfield, sports figures, etc. none of which are related to this list of the only things he will consider.

I included the following in an email to the union:

   "The event happened outside school grounds and hours. Therefore, School can do nothing in a "he said/he said" exercise.
    The city of Oklahoma City disbanded the Human Rights Commission because of the proposed addition of "sexual orientation", and as there are no laws applicable to  punish the speech or even want to.
    I decided to disempower the word. Point out where the attempt at intimidation fell far short. To let it be known that we do not have to quietly accept this sort of treatment so that those who mete out this treatment do not have to feel uncomfortable about it as they do it?
    If the word has the principal that upset because it is visible, well then, welcome to my world.

               IT IIIIIISSSSSSSS AN UNCOMFORTABLE WORD.  

   If it is only the violation of the policy, then let's poll the faculty on how many people have routinely requested permission for everything they have, or have had hanging, or were questioned about it when the principal saw it.
     Remember, I asked for this permission for one solid year alone because only I had received a copy of this cover-up fix to end the grievance.
    I think it is PAINFULLY obvious that between that year and this one incident it is only when something is done that could be positive for GLBT kids that the policy applies. They see a Gay Man, whether they like me personally or not is irrelevant, who is just not going to pretend he does not exist, and will let people know this is a cowards' word and WE do not have to quietly take, or learn to handle it.

    WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING IT. THAT'S WHY WE ARE TIRED OF IT.

    Perhaps the principal would like to amend that outrageous policy, or begin to apply it to everyone on NWClassen.
    He wants to meet with me.
This is my approach.
This is why I did it.
And, why is this not universally applied? Could it be the subject matter.
    The kid calling me "faggot" isn't even an issue. The concern is whether or not I violated the bulletin board policy.
Let's see.
A violation of a "policy"?
A violating of a human being?
HMMMMM, and which one is the more important?
I am again to accept what happened QUIETLY, remember my place. Find out  (perhaps?) that the bulletin board thing was in exchange for censorship, but someone forgot to tell me?
     Shouldn't the reaction have been, "Joe, that was terrible what that kid said. Would you like us to do something about IT since it has upset you so?"
The cover will be that I didn't go to them first?
   After the past 2½ years, one positive act of the principal does not inspire all that much faith in their doing anything about it. The parent might not like it.
NOW they are aware of it. So, why is their first reaction to defend a policy?
I guess perhaps once the important thing is taken care of, the other thing might get some time."

    We are to meet on Monday. I will let you know what comes of it. I will, of course ask why he is not concerned about the use of the word, but only the "violation" of his rather overly broad policy.
    You might be interested to know that throughout all the discussions, although the principal insists he would like to do the right thing, he holds it is imperative that the whole district have a policy dealing with GLBT things as it would not be right that only NWClassen have such a policy. BUT, to be the only school in the district with a poster policy such as the one quoted above and which is only applied to the censoring of anything positive when it comes to GLBT matters is perfectly acceptable.
Is this not a contradiction?
Joe Quigley





I do not think you violated any agreement. You explained the use of the word and what had provoked you to take such action. I find it interesting Steve was summoned without any hint of discipline charges. Is he going to attend your meeting with Mr. Davis. It is difficult how they can feel they have avoided discrimination and harrassment charges on your part.

Skip




Thanks for the reply.
Davis called Steve and told him I had violated the mediation agreement. I was not aware of any other than Davis's suggestion of a bulletin board for community events so that I would not have to hang such in my classroom. But, I did not see that precluding me hanging anything.
  Steve just came and told me it had to be removed without any discussion, but based solely on Davis's phone call.
    I explained the purpose of the poster, but he insisted I take it down. I asked why I, as a member of AFT was being allowed to be treated uniquely by my principal with AFT supporting the action of the principal. In 2000, I was advised to accept the addition to the faculty handbook that covered the new policy as a way to resolve the grievance because it would apply to all faculty. But, inspite of my being the only person who was given the new policy, and my adhering to it AFT did not do anything to rersolve this situation and I had to set up a situation where Davis had to end up being told to give a copy to all teachers. But then He doesn't enforce it except in my case, and Steve backs this. Ted trusts Steve, so that doesn't help. Here is the policy. You can see it is unreasonable. The asterixes are mine.

"Anyone wishing to post or display any promotional materials, advertisements, meeting announcements, motivational sayings, signs, or posters, or informational signs or posters in their classroom shall request and receive permission * from the principal or principal's designee prior** to displaying any such material. The principal will only consider approval of those materials which relate to instruction, curriculum, the course syllabus, extra-curricular or co-curricular activities, and those materials which generally promote school activities or relate to the courses being taught"***

* Although it says "shall request AND receive", I was told on more than one occasion I could not hang something. I asked, but did not receive
** On more than one occaision when I pointed out a religious poster in a teacher's (non-union) classroom hung without prior permission, he granted post-facto permission.
*** people have snoopy, Garfield, Sports figures, etc. none of which are related to this list of the only things he will consider.

Today I received the following directive.

"You are directed to remove by 240 PM today any posted materials on your door or any other classroom area location which do not meet the criteria in J.Posting of Bills in the 2001-02 Faculty handbook (In actuality, he neglected to add that to the handbook when it was revised this past summer, and was forced to hand copies of the original memo out to faculty). If you wish to discuss this issue I will do so in the conference which I requested with you in in the memo placed in you mailbox on Wednesday, April 17, 2002"
(I got it when I went to my mailbox as I was leaving at the end of that day.)

I responded by writing the following on the bottom of a copy of his memo, making a copy which he picked up from his in-box in my presence as well as his secretary's.

"The narrative will be removed by 2:40 PM 4/18/02 as per your directive.
    I am sure, in spite of my informal and unofficial survey of some members of the faculty to the contrary, this policy is being universally applied with equal vigor to all faculty members and is not related solely to me or the subject matter?
     I am also encouraged by your concern for what the narrative relates as opposed to your being solely concerned about a policy selectively applied.
     Between the violation of a policy and the violation of a faculty member by a student, I am a little confused at the attention given solely to need to remove a poster with none given to the assault.
     As for meeting today, there is a meeting of the English Department at 2:20 today. Perhaps we can meet on Monday" (pardon my sarcasm).
     
    Doesn't his action show that I am being uniquely treated, yet AFT lets it happen, and Steve supports it? I keep feeling that the subject matter is objectionable to Steve, and he is letting his personal prejudice interfere with fair representation? I was trained very well in union procedures (even attended seminars by Mr. Donovan of the Donovan Commission when he held them at Harvard) and this does not appear to be fair representation.
Comments?
Joe

 

Previous postings from Joe Quigley:

 

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO FRONT PAGE

 

GayOKC.com COPYRIGHT © 1998 - 2002 ROBERT D. ABIERA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. (NO, THIS IS NOT JOE QUIGLEY'S PERSONAL WEBSITE!)