Dear Editor,
The Dispatch editorial board should fully consider all of the
implications of a position such as the one it has taken regarding
teacher participation in the Day of Silence.
Dear Editor,
The Dispatch editorial board should fully consider all of the implications of a position such as the one it has taken regarding teacher participation in the Day of Silence.
The editorial sited GUSD policy 6144 which states that when discussing a controversial issue, the teacher shall not “promote any partisan point of view.” BP 6144 does not apply because no discussion took place. That is the point to the Day of Silence, lack of conversation. How then does the editorial board site this policy as applicable? How does a teacher discuss a controversial issue when no conversation takes place?
Even if one assumes, incorrectly, that a discussion took place during the Day of Silence, advocating for the legal rights of individuals is neither controversial nor partisan. California code makes it illegal to discriminate against a person based upon an individual’s sexual orientation in many areas including hiring, housing and insurance. Advocacy for the law is not partisan. Making students aware of individual rights under the law is not controversial.
Another interesting dilemma is what objective standard is used by anyone to decide what constitutes a partisan or controversial issue. The definition as applied to The Day of Silence is difficult. Any attempt at a definition will be filled with unintended side effects. Any objective standard that makes The Day of Silence controversial will more than likely make the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance controversial as well because the use of the words “under God” and the pending litigation in the matter. This is a road that has too many pitfalls to negotiate safely and is best not attempted.
Another Dispatch editorial states, “Whatever legal opinion is forthcoming [regarding teacher participation in the Day of Silence], we trust that our elected trustees will stand up for our students and demand accountability from the teachers.” This statement is so blatantly irresponsible as to be almost unworthy of comment. The editorial board appears to be advocating that the GUSD Board take action even if that action goes against the advice of legal council. Given the $1.1 million settlement made by the Morgan Hill Unified School District, such a statement is clearly reckless.
I challenge the editorial board to define partisan and controversial in advocating for the use of GUSD Board Policy 6144 in The Day of Silence. Advocating for implementation of a policy before fully defining terms and contemplating the implications lacks wisdom. Advocating for action before fully considering potential consequences of the action is careless. The members of the editorial board should know better.
Wayne Scott, GHS mathematics teacher
