Gay teachers - does it make a difference?

Annasopra

dubscottie wrote: »

And why would that be? Come on say it..

Cos he's a homophobe of course

http://aep.lib.rochester.edu/sites/default/files/imagecache/postermagnify/aep_posters/AP6305.jpg

Annasopra

solerina wrote: »

No it doesn't, and it's a pity that the OP felt the need to ask !!!
Your private life is just that PRIVATE.

Funny I remember loads of teachers being congratulated on different family events - weddings, children etc.

It really is a sad reflection on some here that they would probably still agree with Eileen Flynn being sacked.

byhookorbycrook

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Funny I remember loads of teachers being congratulated on different family events - weddings, children etc.

It really is a sad reflection on some here that they would probably still agree with Eileen Flynn being sacked.

i would disagree completely with this. I subbed in many schools down the years and the whole thing was treated as being mad.

moc moc a moc

mattP wrote: »

I'm gay, and im afraid that will make it a very awkward and difficult ordeal

How would anyone even know you are gay?

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Well I wouldn't want you teaching my children. As an adult I accommodate people with issues with all sorts of issues, but I don't think children need to to be subjected to this.

I don't think they have gay versions of maths, Irish, business studies, etc. Pretty sure your children will be taught the exact same subjects regardless.

katydid

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

i would disagree completely with this. I subbed in many schools down the years and the whole thing was treated as being mad.

I don't think the problem would be in the staff rooms...

The Black Oil

robp wrote: »

Mocking people's views. how progressive of you :rolleyes:
If pupils are being subject to a teacher's sexuality something is very wrong.

What's wrong is your base assumption. Gay teachers are not going to be going around asking kids to swear an allegiance to Panti et al. This seems to be the perception amongst some and in these sort of debates.

December2012

I'm not a teacher but I am a parent to two primary school children. I don't need to know the sexuality of my children's teachers. That being said, if their teacher was lgbt I would have no problem with that.

I should add: if any teacher was subject to any harassment, bullying or discrimination based on their sexuality I would support that teacher as much as possible.


I would have a problem with their teacher being a homophobe.

Annasopra

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

i would disagree completely with this. I subbed in many schools down the years and the whole thing was treated as being mad.

What was treated as being mad?

Telling students about your family events?

Eileen Flynn?

markc2951

I don't know about primary but I'd say if you were a gay secondary school teacher they would rip you to shreds like a pack of lions...secondary school can be brutal for teacher and student

patsman07

Go ahead and do primary teaching, you will have very very few, if any, instances of repression from official sources. It would be worse if you were a vocal atheist, although thankfully the pressure is building for more secular schools.

Annasopra

markc2951 wrote: »

I don't know about primary but I'd say if you were a gay secondary school teacher they would rip you to shreds like a pack of lions...secondary school can be brutal for teacher and student

I think school attitudes have changed considerably in the last 10 years thanks to the work of Belong To, GLEN, TENI, Ministers and the department of education, unions and even strong advocates like McAleese.

My friend who went to an all girls school (convent) came out as a trans male in fifth year and it went overall fairly well.

Also I know many many 18 year old students registered to vote yes in May and it was very very popular amongst secondary schools to be wearing yes equality badges.

mattP

moc moc a moc wrote:

How would anyone even know you are gay?

Well I think marrying a guy would be a rather big give away:p *
I wouldn't lie if the topic of partners came up because then Id look like a coward when people found out one way or another...
*Wow, that sounds so normal, its amazing

RealJohn

1. A teacher's private life should not affect them in the classroom.
2. It's worry how some forms of intolerance are still accepted these days.
3. The intolerance I'm referring to right now is that anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of a homosexual teaching is a homophobic bigot, which need not necessarily be the case.

Now personally, I don't have any issue with homosexual teachers. I have had homosexual colleagues and, as far as I know, it never affected their professional lives (though I suppose I'm unlikely to know).
On the other hand, I know that there were teachers in my school afraid to discuss the gay marriage referendum in my school, not because they were voting yes but because they were voting no. I know that being honest with my students when they asked me how I was voting (I voted no and told some of the older students that when asked) damaged my relationship with some of them, simply because they have been conditioned to believe that anyone who voted no was a homophobe (which, if we're honest, was one of the main tactics the yes campaign used). I'm not.

The one person on this thread who said that they wouldn't be comfortable with a homosexual teacher teaching their children has been roundly abused for saying so, even though there was nothing abusive in what they said.

Granted, I don't know what exactly they meant by "subjected to this" and I don't agree with their position personally but they are entitled to hold their opinion and voice it and it doesn't necessarily make them a bad person who deserves abuse (and it also doesn't mean they're not a bad person).

I do know that the abuse (and it was abuse) that I suffered for being honest about how I was voting (and similar abuse was suffered by anyone I spoke to and anyone I witnessed who were open about voting no), both from colleagues, students (though that's largely water off a duck's back) and strangers (online primarily) negatively affected my feelings towards homosexuals and anyone who supported them, not because I have an issue with homosexuals but because I was made to feel that they have an issue with me and that I was forced to defend myself (rather than my opinion, which of course I should have to defend). The way that poster who said they don't want their children being taught by a homosexual has been treated only fosters that feeling of resentment and distrust and ultimately (and this is a popular buzzword at the moment) radicalises them. This is not a positive thing, regardless of what opinion they hold.

I will add that while I felt some of my colleagues abused me for my position on the gay marriage referendum, some were respectful of my position and my willingness to discuss and debate it, in spite of the fact that they disagreed with me and that, I feel, improved my relationship with them and nurtured a culture of openness between us. By contrast, I still feel there's a 'distance' between myself and some other colleagues that had never been there before because of how they reacted to how I said I was voting. I'd love to know how those of you attacking the person who said they don't want homosexuals teaching their kids think that this is a positive thing, forcing people to keep their disapproval bottled up, being made to feel like they're bad people just for holding the opinion rather than for the reasoning behind it. Some of you have asked why the person feels that way and what exactly they mean by what they said. That's how it should be. Some others have simply been abusive. That helps nobody. It just fosters resentment and ill will.

Annasopra

I'm sorry the Yes campaign in the marriage equality did not use a tactic of "vote no and you are a homophobe" - this is pure nonsense. That may have been used by some who strongly agreed with the proposition but it is utter utter nonsense to suggest that it was one of the main yes campaign tactics used. It simply wasn't. The yes campaign was positive in engaging with voters. Any negativity such as ripping down posters, hijacking Youth Defences website and using images of Breda O Brien was requested to be ceased by yes campaigners.

The yes campaign used many many different tactics; door to door canvassing, calm reassurance, utilising campaign allies, building a grassroots movement overnight, creative use of social media, targeted local and national media, celebrities and ordinary people coming out.

I'm genuinely sorry that you felt that you were branded a homophobe but that simply was not a tactic that the Yes campaign undertook.

I know that for a fact. I was involved in 2 national campaigns. I organised hundreds of canvassers. They were always expressly told - be polite to no voters and do not engage in arguments or fighting. I sent out dozens of press releases. They were positive in their message. The only argument I had personally had on the doorstep was where I told a man that no I didnt want to marry my Brother. Most no voters were respectful and polite and I was respectful and polite back. If they were agressive I simply walked away. Despite the fact I wanted to scream abuse back at them. Despite the fact that some of their comments were hurtful bringing up child abuse etc.

I have seen many strategy documents from national campaigns and none of them used a tactic of attacking no voters or calling all no voters homophobes.

This did happen amongst the general populace but it definitely definitely was not a campaign tactic.

markc2951

Joeytheparrot wrote:

I think school attitudes have changed considerably in the last 10 years thanks to the work of Belong To, GLEN, TENI, Ministers and the department of education, unions and even strong advocates like McAleese.

Joeytheparrot wrote:

My friend who went to an all girls school (convent) came out as a trans male in fifth year and it went overall fairly well.

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Also I know many many 18 year old students registered to vote yes in May and it was very very popular amongst secondary schools to be wearing yes equality badges.

I'm out of school ten years,maybe it has changed a bit but not a lot I reckon..there was no gay people in my school then that anyone knew of..I can guarantee you gay people still get savage abuse in school

spurious

markc2951 wrote: »

I'm out of school ten years,maybe it has changed a bit but not a lot I reckon..there was no gay people in my school then that anyone knew of..I can guarantee you gay people still get savage abuse in school

I think it depends very much on the atmosphere allowed in the school. If teachers walk past lads using the word '******' or 'queer' at each other, then of course the message is given that that's OK. If the anti-bullying policy treats such comments as bullying and tackles every known occasion of them, then a very different message goes out.

We used to have a couple of very out strong characters among our students. The local kids knew them all their lives and the non-locals soon realised nobody was slagging these guys and followed suit.

I'm no longer teachng there, but I hear from my ex-colleagues there are a number of 'out' kids now, across all years, which can only be a good thing.

Bullying of gay teachers, while section 37 is about, is a whole other issue.

RealJohn

The official line and what happened in practice were very different things Joey and, whether you like it or not, anyone who vocally supported a yes vote was a campaigner, official or not.

Also, I didn't see or hear any of the more obvious figureheads of the yes campaign telling people not to call no voters bigots or homophobes, nor did I see it on any literature. If that was the official line, it certainly wasn't well publicised. I'd say it's almost as though the yes campaign were quite happy for it to happen, even if they were officially discouraging it (and I've saw no evidence that they were).

I find it interesting though that that is all you had to say about my post. It was a long post and the only thing that engaged you was a throwaway comment on one of my observations?
If that is the case, fair enough. Seems odd to me though.

Annasopra

RealJohn wrote: »

The official line and what happened in practice were very different things Joey and, whether you like it or not, anyone who vocally supported a yes vote was a campaigner, official or not.

Also, I didn't see or hear any of the more obvious figureheads of the yes campaign telling people not to call no voters bigots or homophobes, nor did I see it on any literature. If that was the official line, it certainly wasn't well publicised. I'd say it's almost as though the yes campaign were quite happy for it to happen, even if they were officially discouraging it (and I've saw no evidence that they were).

I find it interesting though that that is all you had to say about my post. It was a long post and the only thing that engaged you was a throwaway comment on one of my observations?
If that is the case, fair enough. Seems odd to me though.

It simply wasn't a yes campaign tactic. Its absolute nonsense and untrue to suggest it was. People who took action against no campaigns were asked to desist.

https://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/45407/0/
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/same-sex-marriage-referendum-removal-5573116

Perhaps you don't understand what a "campaign tactic" is. Maybe you do. Can you point me to where yes campaigns asked there supporters to go round calling people homophobes or bigots?

Annasopra

markc2951 wrote: »

I'm out of school ten years,maybe it has changed a bit but not a lot I reckon..there was no gay people in my school then that anyone knew of..I can guarantee you gay people still get savage abuse in school

I didnt say all schools are completely free of homophobic and transphobic bullying.

I was stating factually that much work has been done by Belong To, GLEN, TENI, The Department, The Minister, Individual Teachers and Principals, The Unions, The Principals organisations, USS, USI, Shoutout and that this has trickled down quite well in many schools. Of course many schools still do have problems with homophobic and transphobic bullying. Many 16, 17 and 18 year olds come out as LGB and even T in school nowadays. There is in many schools more of a supportive framework than if this happened 10 years ago.

Again I emphasise it hasn't improved for all schools and all students and some students still face a horrendous daily school life but overall the cultutral situation in schools has improved in the last 10 years.

byhookorbycrook

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What was treated as being mad?

Telling students about your family events?

Eileen Flynn?

Eileen Flynn being dismissed. If schools were to discriminate against single parents , most schools would lose huge numbers (and rightly so.) I can't see a teacher losing a job because of their sexuality or relationship status,bar the teacher being a practicing pedophile.

Annasopra

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Eileen Flynn being dismissed. If schools were to discriminate against single parents , most schools would lose huge numbers (and rightly so.) I can't see a teacher losing a job because of their sexuality or relationship status,bar the teacher being a practicing pedophile.

Yes but the reality is under Section 37.1 of the Employment Equality Act they can legally do so.

The existence of Section 37.1 allows a threat to hang over the job security, general well being and promotional prospects of teachers who are LGBT, single parents and divorced.

Section 37.1 has never been used but it leaves many teachers in vulnerable positions because of their personal lives.

RealJohn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It simply wasn't a yes campaign tactic. Its absolute nonsense and untrue to suggest it was. People who took action against no campaigns were asked to desist.

https://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/45407/0/
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/same-sex-marriage-referendum-removal-5573116

Perhaps you don't understand what a "campaign tactic" is. Maybe you do. Can you point me to where yes campaigns asked there supporters to go round calling people homophobes or bigots?

You linked me two articles that are completely irrelevant to what I said. I've already said that it might not have been an official tactic but it most certainly was a tactic nonetheless. I also said that the campaign didn't just consist of official campaigners. I think you're the one who doesn't understand here.
Neither of those articles said anything about not calling no voters bigots and/or homophobes and given how widespread that was, if the official yes campaigners were condemning it (which they were doing very quietly indeed, if at all) it should be really easy for you to produce evidence of it.

Annasopra

RealJohn wrote: »

You linked me two articles that are completely irrelevant to what I said. I've already said that it might not have been an official tactic but it most certainly was a tactic nonetheless. I also said that the campaign didn't just consist of official campaigners. I think you're the one who doesn't understand here.
Neither of those articles said anything about not calling no voters bigots and/or homophobes and given how widespread that was, if the official yes campaigners were condemning it (which they were doing very quietly indeed, if at all) it should be really easy for you to produce evidence of it.

I have produced evidence that people who attacked no camapigns by tearing down posters and hacking websites were asked to desist.

The canvassing guide is attached. It says nothing about a tactic of caling people homophobes.

UCD has studied the campaign and found no evidence of your campaign tactic
http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201521.pdf

Panti was quietly pushed behind the scenes during the campaign because the Yes campaign specifically did not want to go there.

You can only talk of unofficial people who were not yes campaigners. You have no evidence that this was a campaign tactic. Absolutely Zero evidence. It either shows that you misunderstand what a campaign tactic is or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

patsman07

RealJohn wrote: »

1. A teacher's private life should not affect them in the classroom.
2. It's worry how some forms of intolerance are still accepted these days.
3. The intolerance I'm referring to right now is that anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of a homosexual teaching is a homophobic bigot, which need not necessarily be the case.

Now personally, I don't have any issue with homosexual teachers. I have had homosexual colleagues and, as far as I know, it never affected their professional lives (though I suppose I'm unlikely to know).
On the other hand, I know that there were teachers in my school afraid to discuss the gay marriage referendum in my school, not because they were voting yes but because they were voting no. I know that being honest with my students when they asked me how I was voting (I voted no and told some of the older students that when asked) damaged my relationship with some of them, simply because they have been conditioned to believe that anyone who voted no was a homophobe (which, if we're honest, was one of the main tactics the yes campaign used). I'm not.

The one person on this thread who said that they wouldn't be comfortable with a homosexual teacher teaching their children has been roundly abused for saying so, even though there was nothing abusive in what they said.

Granted, I don't know what exactly they meant by "subjected to this" and I don't agree with their position personally but they are entitled to hold their opinion and voice it and it doesn't necessarily make them a bad person who deserves abuse (and it also doesn't mean they're not a bad person).

I do know that the abuse (and it was abuse) that I suffered for being honest about how I was voting (and similar abuse was suffered by anyone I spoke to and anyone I witnessed who were open about voting no), both from colleagues, students (though that's largely water off a duck's back) and strangers (online primarily) negatively affected my feelings towards homosexuals and anyone who supported them, not because I have an issue with homosexuals but because I was made to feel that they have an issue with me and that I was forced to defend myself (rather than my opinion, which of course I should have to defend). The way that poster who said they don't want their children being taught by a homosexual has been treated only fosters that feeling of resentment and distrust and ultimately (and this is a popular buzzword at the moment) radicalises them. This is not a positive thing, regardless of what opinion they hold.

I will add that while I felt some of my colleagues abused me for my position on the gay marriage referendum, some were respectful of my position and my willingness to discuss and debate it, in spite of the fact that they disagreed with me and that, I feel, improved my relationship with them and nurtured a culture of openness between us. By contrast, I still feel there's a 'distance' between myself and some other colleagues that had never been there before because of how they reacted to how I said I was voting. I'd love to know how those of you attacking the person who said they don't want homosexuals teaching their kids think that this is a positive thing, forcing people to keep their disapproval bottled up, being made to feel like they're bad people just for holding the opinion rather than for the reasoning behind it. Some of you have asked why the person feels that way and what exactly they mean by what they said. That's how it should be. Some others have simply been abusive. That helps nobody. It just fosters resentment and ill will.

I agree with you that there is an "intolerance" towards people who voted no in the referendum and to people who express opinions, like the one expressed by the previous poster you mention. I believe the reason for this is rather straightforward.
There is, in my opinion, a progression of morality which seems to happen in society as time goes by. Slavery, the death penalty, flogging, corporal punishment, institutional sexism/homophobia were all common place in the Western world and were/are being gradually phased out as time progresses. This is due to the progression of morality that I speak of.

If a poster was to state here that he/she would not want a black teacher teaching their child, they would probably be banned by mods. There is an intolerance towards such opinions and the people who hold them, and rightly so in my opinion.
Homophobia has just passed/is passing the threshold of being unacceptable. People, increasingly find homophobia despicable and therefore display intolerance towards it.

People like David Quinn (a major player in the no campaign), has written recently (here: http://irishcatholic.ie/article/religion-being-banished-all-our-screens) that the recent 'eir' add is promoting a political message because it features a rainbow flag. I don't consider gay rights a political issue, its a moral one, and I tend to be intolerant towards people and opinions which are opposed to the moral progression.

coolbeans

EoghanIRL wrote: »

...It's ok to have your own opinion but not when it's offensive to others.

If you're a teacher I hope you're not teaching that to your pupils. I hold plenty of opinions that I'm sure some would find offensive however I still hold these opinions and that's OK. I don't share them with those who'd be offended because I'm not a psychopath and don't wish to unnecessarily offend. You're wrong to state it's not OK to have opinions that are offensive to others. That's just wrong like.

Annasopra

Some good news tonight

http://theoutmost.com/news/31567/

spurious

At last. It was a long time coming. How a section such as 37 ever got into any equality legislation was laughable.

evolving_doors

spurious wrote: »

At last. It was a long time coming. How a section such as 37 ever got into any equality legislation was laughable.

Would this have any bearing on the preclusion of pupils on the grounds of religion?

spurious

I don't think so, though its a step along the way of taking any and all religious influence out of the schools.

I believe an amendment to stop the schools being able to refuse to admit unbaptised kids was defeated.

Aufbau

RealJohn wrote: »

2. It's worry how some forms of intolerance are still accepted these days.
3. The intolerance I'm referring to right now is that anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of a homosexual teaching is a homophobic bigot, which need not necessarily be the case.

What other interpretation would you put forward other than the most obvious one above? I think your argument is spurious. (Sorry, Spurious!)

I know that there were teachers in my school afraid to discuss the gay marriage referendum in my school, not because they were voting yes but because they were voting no. I know that being honest with my students when they asked me how I was voting (I voted no and told some of the older students that when asked) damaged my relationship with some of them, simply because they have been conditioned to believe that anyone who voted no was a homophobe (which, if we're honest, was one of the main tactics the yes campaign used).

It's not easy to stand against any group with strongly opposing views. I was afraid to discuss the referendum with one group of friends because I was voting yes, and they are ultra conservative and very Catholic. I know that when I did discuss it with them that it damaged my relationship with them, simply because they have been conditioned to believe that homosexuality is unnatural and very wrong, and that anyone who supported gay marriage was supporting something very wrong, unnatural and very bad for society. This was one of the main tactics the No campaign used.

The one person on this thread who said that they wouldn't be comfortable with a homosexual teacher teaching their children has been roundly abused for saying so, even though there was nothing abusive in what they said.

It is an abusive thing to say.

I do know that the abuse (and it was abuse) that I suffered for being honest about how I was voting (and similar abuse was suffered by anyone I spoke to and anyone I witnessed who were open about voting no), both from colleagues, students (though that's largely water off a duck's back) and strangers (online primarily) negatively affected my feelings towards homosexuals and anyone who supported them, not because I have an issue with homosexuals but because I was made to feel that they have an issue with me and that I was forced to defend myself (rather than my opinion, which of course I should have to defend). The way that poster who said they don't want their children being taught by a homosexual has been treated only fosters that feeling of resentment and distrust and ultimately (and this is a popular buzzword at the moment) radicalises them.

The abuse I suffered from my group has negatively affected my feelings towards them and towards conservative Catholics in general. It rather radicalised my attitude, hardening my views and generating distrust of large groups of people that I heretofore respected. As I didn't have the pleasure of a reasoned debate I now definitely feel a distance between myself and them and the loud bigotry that emerged.

I would have been happy to have an openly gay teacher work with me, or teach my children.