Being gay in the teaching profession

pernod_oclock

Hi there. I'm a PGDE student at the moment but something's been on my mind since I've been doing teaching practice. I'm a gay guy - I don't exactly broadcast it but I'm not prepared to lie about it either. I'm not particularly worried about the students - it's none of their business what anyone's private life entails and I'd never explicity tell them anything about myself anyway. But in the staff room, I've been innocently asked about how my private life is getting on, and of course people are constantly talking about their bfs / gfs / wives / husbands, children, etc as one would expect in a workplace. But I'm not so sure I'd get a positive reaction if I'm as honest as the rest of them about myself, especially if it's a religious school.

I'd love to get a load of replies to this thread telling me I'm being ridiculous and how the vast majority of people react fantastically to a gay collegue and that discrimination in getting a job never happens but I wouldn't be too sure. I'm just asking those of you "in the industry" what you think the general consequences of being a gay teacher is. Any thoughts welcome.

Thanks for reading this probably very naive post!

Lockstep

I'm not a teacher so dunno how much value my own experience is, but for what it's worth, I've had a few teachers who were gay and also have a few gay teacher friends in the same boat. They find it grand, although if you're extremely camp it might make things harder, mainly with the students.

Gay teachers had no problems in my school but that's purely anecdotal.

spurious

No problems for me. I'm openly gay in the staffroom as is one male colleague. We also have some out students and a very strong anti-bullying policy and response should anyone try bullying a gay person, staff or student.

We're a VEC school. Personally, I wouldn't like to work in a religious school, especially not with the equality legislation the way it is at the moment.

TheDriver

There should be absolutely no problem but remember all the controversary over Eileen Flynn who was fired in 1982 for being pregnant by a seperated man and basically it found that school ethos etc can be imposed so e.g. Catholic Church against homosexuality in theory could be used (again I could be totally wrong and open to correction but am sure this was quoted in an RTE programme about a month ago). Bad form if it was but I have a feeling there is something there. There is a gay and lesbian section of the TUI for support also.
Fair play to you but I definitely wouldn't do a Dafid from Little Britain on it though.................

pernod_oclock

Thanks for the replies so far, they're giving me a wider picture on things. No, I'm not camp, and I do believe there should be a certain professional persona in place in the classroom at least. It's just certain things come up and I don't feel right just sitting like a dummy or skirting issues while a straight person would be free and open with what they could say.

For example, I was back at my old school for TP. A Protestant one. The 10% pay cut had just been announced and a teacher was asking me my reaction, where I said 90% of a wage is better than 100% of nothing. They said back that I'd care when I have a wife and children. So I just smiled back. In a natural conversation I'd have lightheartedly corrected them that there wouldn't be any but I worried if it got back (with negative effect) to TPTB. I know that's a trivial example but loads of that sort of thing arises naturally when you're working. Or that it wouldn't be a huge problem if I were seen out with another guy behaving quite respectably but obviously together.

It has to be said that although I mightn't agree with religious ethoses in schools, if a job was offered to me anywhere in the country next year, I'd need to take it. I know I've not got the worst subject with Irish but if it came down to it, I'd need to go with any school that would offer me a job.

rainbowtrout

I think it's one of those things that'll you'll just have to play by ear. Some schools you would have no hassle at all, as is spurious' experience and ideally that should be the experience for everyone. Life isn't like that though. In other schools while you might not get hassle directly, it might be 'frowned upon' by staff. Some schools still have a really conservative view. I know one or two gay teachers (both male) one works in a school where many of the staff know and it's no problem, but there are a few that don't know and he would prefer to keep it that way. The other works in a fairly conservative CBS, the brothers are still involved in the running of the school and he is not openly gay in the staffroom. He knows some people have guessed but it's the type of thing that nobody talks about because it hasn't been formally acknowledged.

On the other hand the principal of a school in a neighbouring town is gay and she is in a relationship with one of the other teachers from her school. That's common knowledge in schools all over the county not just in her locality. It really just depends on the school you end up in. They're all different.

dory

This was the main reason I dropped out of a teacher course in 2003. I'm still glad I did, I wasn't ready myself and would have probably freaked out if one of the students said anything. I went back teaching at the beginning of this year and it was fine. Wasn't out to my students but would never deny it either. I think a role model for the new generation can only be a good thing. And my colleagues were great so I never had a fear there.
I think it depends on your own situation though.

DubArk

I think half the battle is, that you're confident about who you are. I’m not a teacher myself but I am gay and the same applies in most work places, as long as you're professional, there should be no problems. I have a number of gay male and female friends who are teaching.

Best of luck.

freire

As above. And as with most things in this job it's a judgement call. Your call. I personally keep my outside of school life totally separate, from students, and to a large extent staff. I'm sure some think me an oddball but you know it's my life, my private til I want to tell you life.

Having said all that, I'm sure in the majority of schools it shouldn't/wouldn't be an issue.

looksee

I am also in a VEC FE school and I know there are a couple of gay people on the staff, though I don't know who they are. Even if they were open about it I don't think it would be a problem. There are all sorts of reasons why people might not want to talk about their private/home life, there are a lot of people on the staff that I do not know their marital status.

bernadeli

me personally i wouldnt care about you or anyone been gay cause thats why were all different.if your mates dont like the fact that your gay well i dont think there the kinda frends you need..some people are better looking than others, some are coloured some are not, some are tall, some not, some are gay, some are not..it doesnt make a difference whatsoever..i bet everyone who reads your post knows someone thats gay& i bet they'll say at the start it was weired but now they dont see then as been different..its just a few unfortunate fools that cant seen to get there heads round it but then again they probably all failed in school or social society so need someone to feel embarrased or ashamed about themselves for them to feel better..hope this helps

starre

Honestly, there are a lot of idiots out there, just like in any job. I'd love to tell you it's nothing to worry about.

I've worked in schools where teachers have been disrespectful to members of staff who were gay, "unmarried mothers" (exact words used), foreign, and who weren't catholic. I've lost work because of religion.

Suss out the general vibe of the staffroom when you go in.

spurious

Apart from the idiots which you have everywhere, there is section 37 which effectively means it's OK for your school's management to discriminate against you if you don't fit in. THAT is the problem.

starre

spurious wrote: »

Apart from the idiots which you have everywhere, there is section 37 which effectively means it's OK for your school's management to discriminate against you if you don't fit in. THAT is the problem.

+1

I was told off for telling a group of kids there was nothing wrong with being gay. This was a catholic school. I hadn't mentioned the church or gone on any anti-catholic rant. It was in the context of the civil rights movement. But it was seen as a threat to the catholic ethos of the school. This school had gay members on staff, but it was treated as an open secret and they never mentioned partners.

I also have worked in schools where it isn't an issue in the staffroom.

TheDriver

spurious wrote: »

Apart from the idiots which you have everywhere, there is section 37 which effectively means it's OK for your school's management to discriminate against you if you don't fit in. THAT is the problem.

Thats what I was thinking of, Eileen Flynn brought up an awful lot of backward ideas still in existence.....

pernod_oclock

Thanks for all the replies, they're very helpful indeed.

I think half the battle is, that you're confident about who you are. I’m not a teacher myself but I am gay and the same applies in most work places, as long as you're professional, there should be no problems.

I have to say I'm as comfortable with myself as I think one could be, in any circumstances. I've no hang-ups in that regards and I completely agree with you about professionalism...having seen some utter lack of it while at school myself, I swore I'd be as professional as possible if I ever did become a teacher.

As above. And as with most things in this job it's a judgement call. Your call. I personally keep my outside of school life totally separate, from students, and to a large extent staff. I'm sure some think me an oddball but you know it's my life, my private til I want to tell you life.

I agree that one shouldn't be shouting all one's business from the rooftops in any work environment and students don't even come into this equation - it is simply none of their business.

I've worked in schools where teachers have been disrespectful to members of staff who were gay, "unmarried mothers" (exact words used), foreign, and who weren't catholic. I've lost work because of religion[...]Suss out the general vibe of the staffroom when you go in.

As a few people have advised, I think playing it by ear is the best way of starting out anyway. The religion aspect you mentioned is another worry, me being a (very very very unpracticing) Presbyterian - but as Pearse would have said, I'm a mad Irishman and love teaching it so far (go figure!).

Apart from the idiots which you have everywhere, there is section 37 which effectively means it's OK for your school's management to discriminate against you if you don't fit in. THAT is the problem.

I think this is where the pressing issue is, indeed. Didn't know such a clause existed until you mentioned it. Madness in this day and age. Especially where temporary contracts are the order of the day, it's one extra obstacle to finding a secure place of employment for anyone who doesn't "conform" for any reason to a principal or management's ideal.

pernod_oclock

starre wrote: »

+1

I was told off for telling a group of kids there was nothing wrong with being gay. This was a catholic school. I hadn't mentioned the church or gone on any anti-catholic rant. It was in the context of the civil rights movement. But it was seen as a threat to the catholic ethos of the school. This school had gay members on staff, but it was treated as an open secret and they never mentioned partners.

I also have worked in schools where it isn't an issue in the staffroom.

Very interesting post. I've often wondered what happens in religious schools if a student has an issue that doesn't sit well within the school's ethos. Can they honestly be given effective, unjudgemental, unbiased support in that context? And those gay staff members were grand not to mention partners if that was the prevailing nature of the staffroom in general - nothing wrong with privacy - but it would be very un-grand if it was because of any fear that it could be detrimental to them and their positions as opposed to their straight counterparts mentioning partners.

gaeilgegrinds1

Was at a dinner tonight with my fiance and our friends, as it happens he has two gay men on his team at work. We began talking about this and they agreed any of their teacher friends seem to have it tougher. I remember when I was on tp one of the lads with me in the school was gay and a comment was made by a senior member of staff that he'd never be taken on in a religious school. He was an amazing teacher but two years later went to England. He'd had a situation where a comment was made about his personal life and he just felt it was one more obstacle he could do without. He often says the staffroom was the only place he felt different. We have one teacher on our staff is a lesbian and she keeps it very much to herself, was passed over for a permanent post a few years back as she said she was seen as not having a family etc. and not needing it. I think it's an outrage but not likely to hugely change as most people keep their cards to their chest on this one and therefore don't get much support from others when things go wrong. Fingers crossed it will improve.

gaeilgegrinds1

Just on what Starre said there, I was doing an essay recently on discrimination as Gaeilge and we watched the Scannal programme on Eileen Flynn. I said something along the lines that it was a scandal and was trying to get the students to think of it in modern day terms. One queried could it happen to a gay teacher and I said I didn't know but that it shouldn't. An older member of staff, third from the top (just announced retirement!) had them after me and took me aside afterwards. Made a comment about me not exactly being an ideal rolemodel (I'm not married and due my second baby, for the record this was what I wanted, I'm not some silly girl who accidently got pregnant and hangs my head in shame) and asked me to stick to the syllabus. Given the strength she has in the school I'll take it for now, sad but oh so bloody true. Making my blood boil thinking of it!

pernod_oclock

After reading your posts, gaeilgegrinds1, I'm as unimpressed as you sound!

I said something along the lines that it was a scandal and was trying to get the students to think of it in modern day terms. One queried could it happen to a gay teacher and I said I didn't know but that it shouldn't. An older member of staff, third from the top (just announced retirement!) had them after me and took me aside afterwards. Made a comment about me not exactly being an ideal rolemodel (I'm not married and due my second baby, for the record this was what I wanted, I'm not some silly girl who accidently got pregnant and hangs my head in shame) and asked me to stick to the syllabus.

First of all, I thought it was part of our remit as teachers to not just follow the syllabus but cover the wider curriculum, to prepare the students for life. You were just trying to get the students to think laterally about an issue that they are guaranteed to encounter in their lives, not just trying to get them some marks in the aiste. The senior teacher (probably leaving to save money on their pension) will be no loss to the teaching profession and the school-going population if that's their narrow-minded, quip-laden style. It's easy to sit up high casting judgements in the safe tower of "traditionalness", which can cover up a multitude of sins. And what of this recent push for honesty and transparency in wider society, is it not applicable here? It's especially unpalatable when we consider that this is a school, a learning environment we're talking about...children learn by example, and they also naturally detest hypocrisy. Noone needs to air their washing publicly but we most definitely need to be teaching young people about the world out there in an honest way, not skirting issues to make life easy for schools.

We have one teacher on our staff is a lesbian and she keeps it very much to herself, was passed over for a permanent post a few years back as she said she was seen as not having a family etc. and not needing it. I think it's an outrage but not likely to hugely change as most people keep their cards to their chest on this one and therefore don't get much support from others when things go wrong.

I'd be loath to push the whole issue as a gay rights one, more a "teachers' rights" one. This woman has as much a right to a permanent job as anyone else if she can do her job, and more of a right if she's the best for that job. The idea that one's personal life having more of an influence on job prospects than teaching ability is, frankly, mind-boggling. Any system that supports it needs to take a good hard look at itself. Again, I know these situations are probably the execptions but the idea they can come up at all in the cases of hard-working, enthusiastic gay, unmarried-mother, non-white, non-Catholic or etc teachers cannot be defended.

crucamim

TheDriver wrote: »

There should be absolutely no problem but remember all the controversary over Eileen Flynn who was fired in 1982 for being pregnant by a seperated man and basically it found that school ethos etc can be imposed so e.g. Catholic Church against homosexuality in theory could be used (again I could be totally wrong and open to correction but am sure this was quoted in an RTE programme about a month ago). Bad form if it was but I have a feeling there is something there. There is a gay and lesbian section of the TUI for support also.
Fair play to you but I definitely wouldn't do a Dafid from Little Britain on it though.................

Eileen Flynn was not sacked because of her private life. She was sacked because of her public life - i.e. her domestic arrangements were public knowledge in the small town of New Ross. A point made by the judge, Declan Costello, who presided over her appeal to the High Court.

A Catholic school has a right to remain a Catholic school. If it has, on its staff, a teacher whose personal life is, to public knowledge, at odds with a core principle of Catholicism, it has ceased to be a Catholic school. The central function of a Catholic school is to educate students in a Catholic atmosphere. How could Eileen Flynn's presence on the staff contribute to a Catholic atmosphere? Would anyone question the right of a Jewish school to sack a teacher who had been outed as a Nazi?

Eileen Flynn was not sacked until the mothers of many of the girls she was teaching forced the hand of the nuns. They threatened to withdraw their daughters from that school. Why should the nuns allow their school to be destroyed - not to mention facing legal action from parents who had sent their daughers to a school in the legitimitate belief that it was a Catholic school? Not to mention other teachers in that school losing their jobs due to a fallen enrollment. The rights of an employee do not exist in isolation from the rights of his/her employer and from the rights of customers - or from the rights of colleagues.

Glenn Hoddle was sacked from his job as manager of the English football team - for public conduct prejudicial to the interests of his employer i.e. saying that disabled people were disabled because they were being punished for what they had done in an earlier life.

Tommy Doherty was sacked as manager of Manchester United for having an affair with the wife of Laurie Brown, the physiotherapist at the club. When the club tried to retain his services, the wives of the players stirred up a rebellion and, rather than see their team broken up, the club sacked Doherty. An employer has a right to sack an employee in order to protect the business.

A personal life is private only so long as it remains private. I advise the Gay teacher who has posted on this thread to keep his personal life private. Discretion is the greater part of valour. Do not set out looking for trouble. In this life, one usually encounters more than enough hurdles without seeking to attract or provoke more.

spurious

crucamim wrote: »

Eileen Flynn was not sacked because of her private life. She was sacked because of her public life - i.e. her domestic arrangements were public knowledge in the small town of New Ross. A point made by the judge, Declan Costello, who presided over her appeal to the High Court.

A Catholic school has a right to remain a Catholic school. If it has, on its staff, a teacher whose personal life is, to public knowledge, at odds with a core principle of Catholicism, it has ceased to be a Catholic school. The central function of a Catholic school is to educate students in a Catholic atmosphere. How could Eileen Flynn's presence on the staff contribute to a Catholic atmosphere? Would anyone question the right of a Jewish school to sack a teacher who had been outed as a Nazi?

Eileen Flynn was not sacked until the mothers of many of the girls she was teaching forced the hand of the nuns. They threatened to withdraw their daughters from that school. Why should the nuns allow their school to be destroyed - not to mention facing legal action from parents who had sent their daughers to a school in the legitimitate belief that it was a Catholic school? Not to mention other teachers in that school losing their jobs due to a fallen enrollment. The rights of an employee do not exist in isolation from the rights of his/her employer and from the rights of customers - or from the rights of colleagues.

Glenn Hoddle was sacked from his job as manager of the English football team - for public conduct prejudicial to the interests of his employer i.e. saying that disabled people were disabled because they were being punished for what they had done in an earlier life.

Tommy Doherty was sacked as manager of Manchester United for having an affair with the wife of Laurie Brown, the physiotherapist at the club. When the club tried to retain his services, the wives of the players stirred up a rebellion and, rather than see their team broken up, the club sacked Doherty. An employer has a right to sack an employee in order to protect the business.

A personal life is private only so long as it remains private. I advise the Gay teacher who has posted on this thread to keep his personal life private. Discretion is the greater part of valour. Do not set out looking for trouble. In this life, one usually encounters more than enough hurdles without seeking to attract or provoke more.

Good God (so to speak) - in the 21st century, people think like this?

baalthor

crucamim wrote: »

Would anyone question the right of a Jewish school to sack a teacher who had been outed as a Nazi?

Or a Nazi school to sack a Jewish teacher ??

gaeilgegrinds1

Spurious people do. After years of trying for a baby and giving up I became pregnant unexpectedly. My new school was amazingly supportive. However...the principal in my old school arrived at the house one day to, 'congratulate,' me and brought a mass card and said she'd been praying for the baby. Right...I'm religious in that I attend mass most of the time and my partner and I have quite a lot of beliefs. Is it not also about how you treat people? I escorted her out of my home and asked her not to return. Her final words were that she was glad I was not longer employed in her school if only because the shame would be terrible. So yes...it is rife!

spurious

The proper and full separation of Church and State cannot come quick enough.
As a priority, get them out of primary schools, where the nonsense begins.

seriouslysweet

We've a gay French teacher, he's openly gay but two of the lads refuse to attend his class. Isn't the discrimination against the teacher? In fairness though, why he made an issue of it is beyond me really. Totally archaeic mindset by the two lads though.

spurious

That's entirely a school discipline issue, nothing to do with the teacher being gay.

Two students are refusing to attend their scheduled classes, end of story - and that is how the school should deal with it.

Parents in, drag out signed code of conduct (including mentions of attending classes and following teachers' instructions), there you go, no arguments, you either signed it or you didn't - follow the rules or goodbye. Next!

crucamim

spurious wrote: »

The proper and full separation of Church and State cannot come quick enough.
As a priority, get them out of primary schools, where the nonsense begins.

Leave that to the parents of children to decide. Some parents do not want their children educated in a school controlled by a church. Such parents should not send their children to a school owned by a church.

The rights of secularists do not exist in isolation from the rights of the devout. The rights of teachers do not exist in isolation from the rights of the parents whose children they teach. Nor do the rights of teachers exist in isolation from the rights of the owners of the school. Nor do the rights of one teacher exist in isolation from the rights of colleagues.

Some of the posters are truly the product of a society which puts great stress on rights and none on duties.

crucamim

spurious wrote: »

Apart from the idiots which you have everywhere, there is section 37 which effectively means it's OK for your school's management to discriminate against you if you don't fit in. THAT is the problem.

What is wrong with that? Schools do not exist to provide teachers with employment. There primary function is to provide a service for parents. Parents have a right to be selective as to who as power over their children.

In Northern Ireland it is not only Church owned schools which have the right to discriminate. State schools have a right to discriminate against Catholics. If you were teaching in a State school in a Presbyterian area of Co Antrim and you married a Papist, would you be allowed to keep your job - or your life? And in England, if you were teaching in a mainly Muslim State school in Birmingham and you took part in a BNP march through Birmingham, would you be allowed to remain a teacher in that school?

When one takes this question away from the issue of teacher rights and considers the rights of all those likely to be affected by that teacher, the issue starts to get complicated, very complicated. Teachers tend to be in no doubt - their rights must come before all else. The population in general tend to see things differently. Why are teachers so arrogant?

desertcircus

crucamim wrote: »

Leave that to the parents of children to decide. Some parents do not want their children educated in a school controlled by a church. Such parents should not send their children to a school owned by a church.

The rights of secularists do not exist in isolation from the rights of the devout. The rights of teachers do not exist in isolation from the rights of the parents whose children they teach. Nor do the rights of teachers exist in isolation from the rights of the owners of the school. Nor do the rights of one teacher exist in isolation from the rights of colleagues.

Some of the posters are truly the product of a society which puts great stress on rights and none on duties.

And how many schools are there in Ireland which are available to parents who are uncomfortable with sending their kids to a church-run school?

The rule should be very simple: any claim that LGBT students or teachers are inferior or undesirable should be punished quickly and severely, and any school which refuses to adhere to that should be taken over by the State and its ethos changed to a nondenominational one.

Incidentally: your choice of analogy is telling, and repulsive. A Jewish school would be morally right to sack an avowed Nazi because the Nazi in question believes every member of the faculty and student body should be exterminated. Thinking the two cases are even vaguely comparable is warped.

desertcircus

crucamim wrote: »

What is wrong with that? Schools do not exist to provide teachers with employment. There primary function is to provide a service for parents. Parents have a right to be selective as to who as power over their children.

In Northern Ireland it is not only Church owned schools which have the right to discriminate. State schools have a right to discriminate against Catholics. If you were teaching in a State school in a Presbyterian area of Co Antrim and you married a Papist, would you be allowed to keep your job - or your life? And in England, if you were teaching in a mainly Muslim State school in Birmingham and you took part in a BNP march through Birmingham, would you be allowed to remain a teacher in that school?

When one takes this question away from the issue of teacher rights and considers the rights of all those likely to be affected by that teacher, the issue starts to get complicated, very complicated. Teachers tend to be in no doubt - their rights must come before all else. The population in general tend to see things differently. Why are teachers so arrogant?

NO. The primary function of a school is to provide education and a suitable environment for the children enrolled there. If the school fails to teach the children that it's wrong to treat gay peers as inferior or morally flawed, then the school is failing in its role.

As for your analogies: you seem to be keeping with the offensive comparators. BNP members want to throw out anyone who isn't white English Protestant; you can't do your job as a teacher for children who fall outside that if you think the kids in front of you don't deserve to be in the country, much less get an education. And the question of Northern Ireland is telling; the decision to allow religious segregation in Northern schools is one of the worst ones ever made by a British government.

And how will a student be affected by having a gay teacher? Stop tiptoeing around the edges and spit it out. What makes you think a teacher's sexuality has any impact on their ability to teach?

pernod_oclock

Discretion is the greater part of valour.

Well, I never said I wanted to be valiant, just that I would like to teach. If I aspired to valour, I'd be a fireman or a paramedic. And I don't see much discretion in your posts either. Discretion works both ways: being discrete ( ≠ staying dead silent)
about one's own behaviour and also being discrete in one's reactions to others'. That's what makes a society a civil one where we all can interact with one another when we need to. If you take discretion to mean furtiveness, then I do have a problem with that, as that's where real trouble can brew. People with authority keep "discrete" about many a dark deed - abuse of children for example, and i don't find that particularly valiant.

A Catholic school has a right to remain a Catholic school.

For the time being, you're quite correct in that indeed it does. I have no particular ill will against Catholicism, Catholics or Catholic schools, be under no illusion. If I were to teach in one, it would be easy to draw upon the religion's wealth of history and tradition in the classroom, especially it's influence on my 3 subjects (Irish, history and CSPE). In an academic sense of course, as religious matters are for mass. One particular thing about Catholicism that brings it way up in my estimation as opposed to the Presbyterianism that I was brought up in was its stance on homosexuality. I've read the relevant part of the Catholic Catechism and it's surprisingly liberal on homosexuality (believe it or not). It's recognised as a naturally occuring tendency and from what I read the only objection to the whole thing is what goes on in the bedroom, in that it won't result in possible procreation. Therefore the act is up there with masturbation, watching pornography, contraceptives, etc. I don't see anywhere a requirement to be engaged in heterosexual, in-wedlock sexual relations (sure priests and nuns get by as decent people without engaging in such things).

Notice that a straight person having sex outside of marriage is as bad as gay sex. A gay person outside of the bedroom (and quite possibly within one as well) is the same as any other. And that's what a gay person in a school's staffroom is. Getting round to my main point at last, noone knows what really goes on in anyone's "personal life" as you call a private life. Noone knows that just because I'm gay I break Catholic ethos every day and for anyone to think that I do says more about their dirty minds than mine. When people start preoccupying themselves with guessing what other people might be doing in bed at night then I do believe they need a bit of help.

her domestic arrangements were public knowledge...A personal life is private only so long as it remains private.

I don't know how this really works in practice. If I heard on the grapevine that say, for example, your oh was having an affair, or that you were buying a new house or that you kept 3 cats and a dog or that you eschew irish supermarket dunnes for multinational tesco - well i do believe that that's still your private life, no matter if i know it or not, or if the world at large knows it or not. you have a right to that private life and it really shouldn't affect your rights in your workplace. I'm just hoping that if i go to the cinema with another man or he pulls up outside my flat to have dinner with me that it's equally respected. God knows, the Catholic Church theoretically does.

linguist

Basically, my view is that you have to behave with common sense and an acceptance that a school is not just another workplace. You have two lives: the one that goes on in full view of the students and the one that doesn't. I make no apology for saying that any gay teacher should be freely able to affirm their sexuality in the staffroom or socially with their colleagues whatever type of school it is. I realise that this isn't always the case, but it's what I believe.

Equally though, I believe that teachers really should keep their private lives out of the classroom - and I apply that to heterosexual teachers as much as to homosexual ones. I realise that this is often hard to do, but I do often wonder at colleagues who seek the 'approval' of the kids for their engagement ring etc... We're not there to be their friends and we should be emotionally mature enough to find our support networks among the adults in our lives.

Every teacher needs to remember that teenagers, however grown-up they seem, as still developing and often emotionally immature. Parents, in my view, have the legitimate expectation that gay teachers will keep that side of their lives out of their professional interaction with the students, in the same way as I certainly wouldn't want my kids hearing about the sexual preferences of straight teachers. If you are there to teach an academic subject, get on with it. If you're teaching SPHE or whatever, do it in line with the policies of the school you work in. Be professional, support the students, relate well to them but keep your private life just that.

pernod_oclock

Equally though, I believe that teachers really should keep their private lives out of the classroom - and I apply that to heterosexual teachers as much as to homosexual ones. I realise that this is often hard to do, but I do often wonder at colleagues who seek the 'approval' of the kids for their engagement ring etc... We're not there to be their friends and we should be emotionally mature enough to find our support networks among the adults in our lives.

If I'd made enough posts you'd get a thanks for this. Students don't even come into the equation (further emphasising why being gay should be no problem). The example you gave smacks of the unprofessionalism that stunts the respect-building a teacher needs to engender to contol a classroom these days. As a student, I found teachers' droning on about their children and husbands offputting but I don't mind talking to the same people now in a staffroom setting about their private lives. It's just not for the classroom.

crucamim

desertcircus wrote: »

"And how many schools are there in Ireland which are available to parents who are uncomfortable with sending their kids to a church-run school?"

Whose fault is that? Catholic schools did not fall from heaven. They had to be established by committed Catholics. And the same goes for Presbyterian schools. If secularists want secular schools for their children, what is stopping them from establishing such schools? Why do they send their children to Catholic schools and then try to subvert the Catholicism of those schools?

"The rule should be very simple: any claim that LGBT students or teachers are inferior or undesirable should be punished quickly and severely, and any school which refuses to adhere to that should be taken over by the State and its ethos changed to a nondenominational one. "

So you question the right of Catholic schools to teach Catholicism. You seem to think that you have a right to bully those who do not share your views on homosexuality.

"Incidentally: your choice of analogy is telling, and repulsive."

It might be to you. Not to me.

"A Jewish school would be morally right to sack an avowed Nazi"

What are you credentials to pronounce on morality? Have you a direct line to the Almighty?

"Thinking the two cases are even vaguely comparable is warped."

It might be to you. Not to me. Trying to compel parents to allow their children to be taught by people whose beliefs and behaviour is unacceptable to those parents is tyranny.

crucamim

seriouslysweet wrote: »

We've a gay French teacher, he's openly gay but two of the lads refuse to attend his class. Isn't the discrimination against the teacher?

I see it as bullying of the students.

crucamim

desertcircus wrote: »

"NO. The primary function of a school is to provide education and a suitable environment for the children enrolled there."

Who dicides what is a suitable environment for the children? I suggest that is a function for parents.

"If the school fails to teach the children that it's wrong to treat gay peers as inferior or morally flawed, then the school is failing in its role. "

That might be your opinion. Many Catholics would have a different opinion.

"BNP members want to throw out anyone who isn't white English Protestant;"

So what? If teachers can be dismissed from a State school for taking part in a BNP rally, why should they not be dismissed from a Catholic school for taking part in anti-Catholic activities - like a Gay Pride march?

"you can't do your job as a teacher for children who fall outside that if you think the kids in front of you don't deserve to be in the country, much less get an education."

So you agree with political tests for employment in the public sector. Why
then do you object to religious tests for employment in the Catholic school system?

"And the question of Northern Ireland is telling; the decision to allow religious segregation in Northern schools is one of the worst ones ever made by a British government."

That might be your opinion? I totally disagree with you. We need more educational segregation in Northern Ireland, far, far more. As the Americian poet, Robert Frost put it "Good fences make good neighbours".

"And how will a student be affected by having a gay teacher?"

I leave that to the parents of the students to decide. If the parents are happy, I am happy. I believe in parental choice. I am a liberal and, like all genuine liberals, I have no toleration for the politicial correctness fascism which dominates educational policy in the UK and Eire.

drusk

Crucamim, you still haven't properly answered two very valid questions that were put to you earlier on in this thread.

desertcircus wrote: »

How will a student be affected by having a gay teacher? Stop tiptoeing around the edges and spit it out. What makes you think a teacher's sexuality has any impact on their ability to teach?

I read your response to the first question, but I cannot for the life of me work out what you meant. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "parental choice"?

I agree with most posters here, that a teacher's private life should remain just that in the classroom.

However, I am appalled that the Catholic Church is still, in this day and age, above Irish law when it comes to equality legislation. No school should be allowed to use its religious ethos as a weapon to discriminate against somebody.

I would imagine, however, that not many Catholic schools would openly dismiss a teacher based on his/her sexuality. Rather, schools would discern within a teachers first couple of years of employment prior to permanency whether or not that teacher is "suitable". Being openly or flamboyantly gay would obviously decrease a teacher's chances of being made permanent.

It's sad, but it's reality for the time being, at least. Section 37 won't be around forever.

Crucamim, I'm dying for you to answer those questions...!

crucamim

pernod_oclock wrote: »

"For the time being, you're quite correct in that indeed it does. I have no particular ill will against Catholicism, Catholics or Catholic schools"

If you are not anti-Catholic, how can you be a Presbyterian? Your church teaches that the Pope is an anti-Christ. And you Presbyterians are entitled to that view. We Catholics have a right to keep Catholic children out of your power.

"One particular thing about Catholicism that brings it way up in my estimation as opposed to the Presbyterianism that I was brought up in was its stance on homosexuality. I've read the relevant part of the Catholic Catechism and it's surprisingly liberal on homosexuality"

It does not matter how liberal the RC Church is about homosexuality. RC clergy are usually not rearing children. It is what Catholic parents feel which matters. In my opinion the RC Church has been too tolerant of Gay predators - especially of Gay predators within the ranks of its own clergy - a weakness it tends to share with certain other organisations.

If you are teaching in a Catholic school, do not make public that you have had an abortion, have been divorced, use contraceptives, think that the Pope is a dickhead, have served 10 years for IRA offences or that you do not believe in God. Do not behave in a manner which impacts on the efficiency of the school in promoting Catholicism. Similiarly, if teaching in a Presbyterian school do not make public that you play gaelic football every Sabaath, believe that all Calvinists are dour bigots, and are Gay with a Catholic partner on Sundays and a Jewish partner on Saturdays.

And if you are going to accompany me on a walk up the Shankill Road in Belfast, please understand when I insist on you removing your Pioneer Pin.

"Notice that a straight person having sex outside of marriage is as bad as gay sex. "

I agree. If you are teaching in a Catholic school, do not make it public that you are having straight sex outside wedlock.


"noone knows what really goes on in anyone's "personal life" as you call a private life."

A personal life is private only so long as it remains private. If you insist on telling people that you are Gay, people will know that you are Gay. If you indulge in provocative behaviour, do not complain when people are provoked in taking action to protect themselves and their children. And, finally, I do admit that teaching is an especially sensitive profession in that one spends most of one's working life alone in the presence of other people's children.

Toto Wolfcastle

crucamim your posts are very difficult to read. If you wish to quote then click on this button: (Bottom right of every post)

Then type your response after the [/QUOTE].

crucamim

drusk wrote: »

"I read your response to the first question, but I cannot for the life of me work out what you meant. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "parental choice"?"

The right of parents to refuse to allow their children to be taught by anyone who is unacceptable to them.

"I agree with most posters here, that a teacher's private life should remain just that in the classroom."

Why should teachers have privileges which other workers do not enjoy?

"However, I am appalled that the Catholic Church is still, in this day and age, above Irish law when it comes to equality legislation. No school should be allowed to use its religious ethos as a weapon to discriminate against somebody."

You are showing your anti-Catholic bigotry. The Catholic Church is not above Irish law. The law allows Faith schools to discriminate in employment of teachers. And not just Catholic schools. And not just in Eire. In Northern Ireland, State schools are allowed to refuse to employ Catholic teachers. When Faith schools were exempted form the Equality legislation of Eire, the Minister responsible was a Jewish gentleman called Mervyn Taylor.

I strongly resent your suggestion that, in a Catholic school, non-Catholics should have equality with Catholics. Just as I would resent any suggestion that in Croke Park, rugby players should have equality with hurliers. Or that, in my home, you should have equality with me. And I would resent such a suggestion even if I had received help from the taxpayer to buy my home. Would you concede equality in your home to other Eire taxpayers?

"I would imagine, however, that not many Catholic schools would openly dismiss a teacher based on his/her sexuality."

I suspect that you are correct in that assessment. The leadership of the RC Church in Ireland is so spineless. They had not the guts to sort out the Gay predators within their own ranks. Why should anyone expect them to have the guts to assert the right of Catholic schools to promote Catholicism?

drusk

crucamim wrote: »

In my opinion the RC Church has been too tolerant of Gay predators

There is something MAJOR that you do not understand, crucamim, and I believe that this is the basis for some of the narrow-minded, dated and downright bigoted views you have espoused in some of your posts on this thread.

A GAY person is someone who is attracted to the same sex.

A STRAIGHT person is someone who is attracted to the opposite sex.

A PAEDOPHILE is someone who is attracted to children.

The priests that abused so many children were paedophiles. It is an incredibly offensive insult to gay people to blur the lines between paedophilia and homosexuality. And what you've essentially done here is reveal a lack of understanding of what it essentially is to be gay. Shame on you.

byhookorbycrook

I have worked with a number of gay teachers in different schools down the years, the staff knew they were gay, some parents may have twigged, but there was never any issue. As to "unmarried mothers", if the RC schools were to follow the narrow path some suggest here, there'd be a lot less children at school.

Up-n-atom!

The thing about Catholic schools that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that our government was too poor when the State came into being in the 1920s to push for secular schools - thus they just passed the buck to the religious institutions that were already in place. The country has moved on since then, but the religious control of schools has remained. If schools are receiving government funding for teachers etc I don't understand how they can exist outside equality legislation that applies to other areas. There are gay people in society, how does it make a difference if children are 'exposed' to gay teachers!?! If that is the opinion of some parents, they need to get a grip.

crucamim

drusk wrote: »

There is something MAJOR that you do not understand, crucamim, and I believe that this is the basis for some of the narrow-minded, dated and downright bigoted views you have espoused in some of your posts on this thread.

A GAY person is someone who is attracted to the same sex.

A STRAIGHT person is someone who is attracted to the opposite sex.

A PAEDOPHILE is someone who is attracted to children.

The priests that abused so many children were paedophiles. It is an incredibly offensive insult to gay people to blur the lines between paedophilia and homosexuality. And what you've essentially done here is reveal a lack of understanding of what it essentially is to be gay. Shame on you.

The basic principle is that Catholics have a right to keep their schools Catholic. A Catholic school, most of whose teachers are not practising Catholics, is no longer a Catholic school. A Catholic school, which has on its staff a teacher whose personal life is to public knowledge at odds with core values of Cathlicism, is no longer a Catholic school.

Even where parents send their children to a school owned by the State (as they often do in England), parents have a right to be concerned about the character of those who teach their children.

Schools do not exist to provide teachers, gay or straight, Catholic or otherwise, with employment. A school exists to serve the interests of the parents who send their children to that school. The rights of teachers are of much less importance - althought many members of the teaching profession seem to think that in schools, teachers are the only people who have rights.

crucamim

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

As to "unmarried mothers", if the RC schools were to follow the narrow path some suggest here, there'd be a lot less children at school.

I think that you mean "a lot less children at Catholic schools".

I am not sure what point you are making. This thread is about teachers, especially Gay teachers. What has your point about the children of unmarried mothers to do with such a topic?

spurious

crucamim wrote: »

I think that you mean "a lot less children at Catholic schools".

I am not sure what point you are making. This thread is about teachers, especially Gay teachers. What has your point about the children of unmarried mothers to do with such a topic?

Thanks for the back seat mod.
While we're at it, anymore nonsense from you equating being gay with being a predatory paedophile will get you banned.

crucamim

Up-n-atom! wrote: »

"The thing about Catholic schools that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that our government was too poor when the State came into being in the 1920s to push for secular schools - thus they just passed the buck to the religious institutions that were already in place."

What relevance has that to the right of Catholics to keep their schools Catholics and to the right of parents to refuse to allow their children to be taught by teachers whom they (the parents) consider unsuitable? Times change, human nature does not.

"The country has moved on since then"

In what way has it moved on? Do Catholic schools no longer have the right to preach Catholicism? Do parents no longer have the right to keep their children from harm? Are you saying that if all schools were State schools, we would no longer face such an issue? If you were teaching in a State school in rural County Antrim and you married a RC, would you be allowed to keep your job?????

"but the religious control of schools has remained."

What is wrong with Religious Denominations controlling the schools which they own?

"If schools are receiving government funding for teachers etc I don't understand how they can exist outside equality legislation that applies to other areas."

In that case, you will hardly understand why State schools in Northern Ireland are exempt from the Fair Employment laws.

If you receive mortgage tax relief (help from the taxpayer to buy your home) does that mean that you should be obliged to give other people's children equality with your children in your home? If you receive Child Benefit, does that mean that you should have no say in how your children are educated? That was the policy of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But then we had many admirers of those regimes among the anti-Catholic elements of Eire e.g. the Workers Party and the Labour Party.

"There are gay people in society, how does it make a difference if children are 'exposed' to gay teachers!?! If that is the opinion of some parents, they need to get a grip."

Why are you so arrogant? Parents have a right to be careful about the well-being of their children.

Up-n-atom!

I don't understand how the protection of children's rights and the rights of gay teachers have to be mutually exclusive - a child can have a gay teacher, be perfectly well educated - their Catholic morality and so on isn't going to be impinged by this. Gay teachers aren't going to manufacture little gay children or abuse them! God forbid they might actually emerge with a sense of tolerance and perspective about the different kinds of people that make up society.

My point about religious schools is basically that times have changed, whatever about 'human nature'. Most people in this country are not religious - they might still get baptised, married in a Church and so on, but if you deconstruct their beliefs at all, they maybe believe in God but rarely have a good grasp of what Catholic beliefs actually are. It's just ingrained in the culture at this stage and people just go along with it to some extent. The majority of schools are Catholic schools so there is little alternative for anyone who thinks any different!

crucamim

Up-n-atom! wrote: »

I don't understand how the protection of children's rights and the rights of gay teachers have to be mutually exclusive - a child can have a gay teacher, be perfectly well educated - their Catholic morality and so on isn't going to be impinged by this. Gay teachers aren't going to manufacture little gay children or abuse them! God forbid they might actually emerge with a sense of tolerance and perspective about the different kinds of people that make up society.

My point about religious schools is basically that times have changed, whatever about 'human nature'. Most people in this country are not religious - they might still get baptised, married in a Church and so on, but if you deconstruct their beliefs at all, they maybe believe in God but rarely have a good grasp of what Catholic beliefs actually are. It's just ingrained in the culture at this stage and people just go along with it to some extent. The majority of schools are Catholic schools so there is little alternative for anyone who thinks any different!

The core principle is the right to Catholics to keep their schools Catholic. And the other core principle is that schools do not exist to serve the interests of teachers.

I agree that many people who send their children to Catholic schools are only vaguely Catholic - cultural Catholics some might call them. Hence, my belief that the law should be changed to permit Faith schools to restrict their intake to children whose parents are practising members of that faith. That would provoke the non-religious people into establishing their own schools which might be catering for a majority of the children - as in England. The best way to keep Catholic schools Catholics is to provide non-Catholics with plenty of alternatives.

As a matter of fact, the law already does allow a Faith school to restrict its intake in order to preserve the religious character of the school. Unfortunately, that has come to be seen as acceptable behaviour for Protestant schools and only for Protestant schools. I cannot imagine why.

For some strange reason, it seems to be unacceptable for a Catholic school to restrict its intake to the children of practising Catholics. On reflection, the fault might not lie with the law. The fault might lie with the Catholic bishops who seem to be obsessed with numbers. Could it be that they have a very "live-and-let live" attitude to the admission on the non-devout to Catholic schools because they are afraid that secularists, if pushed, would establish their own schools and compete with the Catholic schools for pupils? If so, I do not understand their fears. Why should Catholic bishops fear the hiving off from Catholic schools of its non-Catholic or anti-Catholic pupils and teachers and thereby making the Catholic schools truly Catholic?

byhookorbycrook

crucamim wrote: »

I think that you mean "a lot less children at Catholic schools".

I am not sure what point you are making. This thread is about teachers, especially Gay teachers. What has your point about the children of unmarried mothers to do with such a topic?

My point is that if you want to take Catholic teaching to extreme, neither gay teachers or children born out of wedlock comform to this doctrine.