Dear Editor:

There are some fundamental problems and weaknesses with the Burnaby school board's proposed policy on homophobia/heterosexism.

No one in his right mind can argue with the right of every individual to be treated with respect and dignity. And no one can object to a policy designed to provide and ensure a safe and secure environment for all students. But these objectives have already been clearly addressed in existing policies 5.10 and 6.40. Homophobic bullying should not be treated any differently from any other type of bullying, which is adequately covered in 5.10, the policy dealing with violence and intimidation in the school environment. The policy states:

The board shall consider any act of violence or intimidation on school premises to be a serious threat to the school environment and to the safety of both students and staff. The board shall take appropriate action, which may include criminal charges being laid.

The 6.40 policy on multiculturalism deals with tolerance, understanding, and respect for those who reflect diversity and differences. And, in essence, these are the same concerns that the new policy addresses. I am in favour of an inclusive omnibus policy that articulates respect for the individual's dignity and rights regardless of race, colour, creed or sexual orientation. This general policy can be easily implemented in any case where there is a breach.

The board has lifted large segments of the existing policies and applied them to the proposed new policy. It seems redundant to create a whole new policy that could be easily subsumed into a more inclusive, comprehensive one.

It leads me to think that there may be a political agenda behind the push and to wonder whether the board may be promoting a pro-LGBTQ+ agenda under the guise of prevention of hostility and cruelty among students.

Also, the board's definition of heterosexism is written in language that is intentionally persuasive and obfuscating. The words "mistaken assumption" and "superior" are intended to give more credence to the policy. They admit that their definitions can be imperfect and are "evolving." So, if you have problems defining something, how can you effectively treat it?

By affirming LGBTQ+, are we then creating the opposite of heterosexism, in the form of a new animal called "homosexism"? To win over people, advocates of the policy are using questionable psychological tactics by likening their cause to the American civil rights movement and the feminist movement.

All of the sexual orientations lumped together as LGBTQ+ present a moral and religious problem to some, and to develop policy and curriculum to affirm behaviours that are morally or religiously unacceptable or questionable contradicts the multicultural and race relations policy Number 6.40 in which the board approved "the goal of promoting positive human interactions, including interactions which are free from divisive attitudes based upon race, ethnic roots, national origin or religious affiliation."

There is a danger that "anti-bullying" policies and curricula will discriminate against religious students who believe that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong.

Schools can and must provide a safe environment for every child, including those who may be confused about their gender identity, but should not engage in one-sided advocacy while alienating or discriminating against others who think differently. There are all kinds of people in the universe, and while respect for all is a pedagogically sound philosophy, it does not mean that we affirm or emulate the behaviours of all. There is a risk in developing a policy that either consciously or unconsciously affirms or promotes something that contradicts the teachings or doctrines of any particular group. It may even be considered a form of blasphemy.

The jury is still out on the causation of some of these sexual orientations, which were previously termed and perceived as aberrations. Recently the American College of Pediatricians has issued a caution to educators warning of the dangers of affirming homosexuality. It warns that "schools should not seek to develop policy which affirms or encourages non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion."

In many cases, the lifestyle of people classified as LGBTQ+ develops as a result of negative or traumatic experiences, such as sexual abuse, and students need therapy for the trauma, not affirmation of their "gay identity." The bottom line is that it is the school's legitimate and responsible role to provide a safe and secure environment for all students, but it is not its role to in any way "affirm" a student's perceived personal sexual preference or orientation or to adopt policies that make inherent judgements about people.

I can understand the need for the board to address the issue of homophobic bullying, but it can do so by implementing or upholding the well-thought-out existing policies, instead of joining the bandwagon with this new policy.

Ben Seebaran, Burnaby, retired teacher/ administrator (Vancouver School Board