- Facebook236
- Threads
- Bluesky
- Total 236
Harvard Ed. School professor Meira Levinson visited the Summer Institute of Civic Studies yesterday and led us in a discussion of a case that raises two fundamental issues. Students were required to choose and implement a civic action project. An Orthodox Jewish 8th-grader chose as his project arguing against the Massachusetts gay marriage law on religious grounds, taking as a premise that homosexuality is immoral and citing scripture as evidence. The chief issues are: 1) the legitimacy of any religious arguments in public forums, such as deliberations in public school classrooms; and 2) the potential effects on any students who might be gay–in other words, the effects on inclusion and equity.
I am inclined to say the following. First, the school and its teacher should not be neutral about homosexuality. Gay students have a right to be included and fully respected in the classroom. The teacher should strongly communicate that anti-gay rhetoric is disallowed.
But there are several reasons to allow the religious student to argue against gay marriage on reasons of faith: 1) Gay marriage is actually a live debate in the legislature and the press, and students should learn to follow such debates. 2) Although a student does not have a constitutional right to say whatever he wants in class, it is good pedagogy to create free speech zones within social studies classrooms. 3) Other students will learn something about orthodox Jewish thought if he can speak candidly. 4) The student in question may learn from other students’ responses, and it is better that he bring his values into the classroom than to feel that he was censored there and continue to hold them privately.
I think that religiously-based arguments should be permitted in a classroom (or a legislature) and not rejected on the ground that they are religious. At the same time, I think anyone who brings religious arguments into the public domain can be required to defend them. If the religious student states, “God says homosexuality is sinful,” other people may reply that God does not say that, or that God does not exist, or that God’s word should not determine human laws. He cannot be permitted to close the debate by claiming that his identity generates his opinions, and therefore a critique of his opinions constitutes an unfair attack on his identity. He is entitled to have his identity as a Jew respected and to be fully included in the classroom, but he is not entitled to have his opinion about homosexuality respected by other people in the classroom. He should expect that it will be challenged.
I am proposing an asymmetry here. Being gay is an identity that must be accepted in a public school classroom; hence the teacher must be against homophobia and must favor inclusion and respect. Holding religiously-based, anti-gay opinions is not an identity but a position, and it can be challenged. (Yet being Jewish is an identity.) I recognize the problem: what counts as an “identity” and an “opinion” is contested and changes over time. But I’m sticking to my position. …
I couldn’t agree more. However, the devil is in the details. No simple formula for creating a classroom atmosphere where light, not only heat, is generated. Hopefully, the class (or the school/community) would not all agree with his position. The most important question for me is the how question. The “how” will, of course, vary depending on the context.
I think there’s something else to be considered: that is what you mean by marriage. As an Anglican priest I have begun many wedding services by proclaiming ‘marriage is a gift of God in creation …a holy mystery in which man and woman become one flesh’. I would argue (on religious grounds) that ‘gay marriage’ is an oxymoron – we need another word for a committed relationship between two gay people. It is perfectly possible to argue on religious grounds against the (mis) use of a term like ‘gay marriage’ and not be homophobic. That’s the current legal position in the UK.
I agree that one can make religious arguments against gay marriage without being homophobic. I would welcome such arguments in a classroom because they reflect debates in adult civil society that students should understand and join. That doesn’t mean that I agree with the substantive position that the word “marriage” is defined by scripture; my own wedding was secular and so would not really constitute a marriage if the only valid definition were religious. But the mark of a good deliberation is not that everyone agrees with my conclusions; it is rather the presence of multiple perspectives. So I would welcome your views. The question I pose is whether an explicitly anti-gay religious reason belongs in an 8th-grade classroom, where some of the students probably are gay. My conclusion: it should be permitted but it should not be treated neutrally. The school ought to be against homophobia.
Pingback: religious freedom and non-discrimination at a private university « Peter Levine
Religion, Democracy, and Debate.
An interesting perspective is offered by Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom and Gizem Arikan . I paraphrase this as … religious doctrine frames identity and relates to bonding social capital; however religious practice (within the community) frames interactions and relates to bridging social capital. In short, if we focus on “why” we believe, then we can become ridged and isolated from the larger world, but if we focus on “what” our faith tells us will work in the world, then we can become interconnected and collaborative.
A related spin can be extracted from Philip M. Fernbach, Todd Rogers, Craig R. Fox and Steven A. Sloman. Extreme disagreements can find at their basis a challenge to “why” we believe. When a dialogue is directed to asking “how” a belief will work to change the world, and when this “how” is probed … gently but also deeply … individuals and groups can lose their confidence in their belief that they understand “how.” With that newfound humility, they can then begin to learn from each other.
I raise these examples because I am cautious about the practical value of debate in our society. Yes, I agree with Bernard Manim’s strong tonic of using debate as a blunt instrument to shatter a complacent rack of pool balls and spread the issues out on the table for consideration … in some circumstances. But I feel that this is best considered as an icebreaker in a many-to-many deliberation, and never considered as a direct means for reaching a happy ending.
So here is my point … our teachers should learn that debate is a tool with potentially deadly consequences, and they should learn how to use it appropriately. If debate is the only tool in their tool box, than all issues will look like identity beliefs that need shattering. We will become schooled in the deadly art of attacking each others identities.
So here once again we have the wrong question on the table. [Kahneman would say that when we cannot easily answer the question that has been asked, we intuitively tend to substitute it for a question that we can comfortably answer] The issue is not whether gay or non-gay marriage is right or wrong, but rather under what circumstances is a non-gay marriage wrong, and under what circumstances is a gay marriage right. Some folks will answer either (or both?) questions with “never.” OK, that is one piece of a mosaic of answers that we should encourage students to assemble into a coherent mosaic of understandings. I think that students will discover that building understandings together is more fun and more productive than seeking to shatter each others’ identity positions.
t
Religion can both hurt and enhance democratic attitudes.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/05/21/religion-can-both-hurt-and-enhance-democratic-attitudes/#more-15339
Political Extremism is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/06/political-extremism-can-be-moderated-asking-people-simple-question