by Dick Hall-Sizemore
Last year, a Loudoun County teacher refused to abide by the school board’s policy regarding the use of pronouns when referring to students. The school board made the mistake of suspending him because he publicly criticized the policy. Although the courts rightly overturned the suspension on the basis that he was punished for exercising his freedom of speech in a public forum, Tanner Cross continued to assert his larger right not to abide by the policy. He declared, “No government can force its citizens to say things they disagree with. This is especially true in schools, where ideas should be fiercely protected, both for the sake of freedom and the sake of truth.” Cross’s lawyer expressed his client’s position this way: “Teachers shouldn’t be forced to promote ideologies that are harmful to their students and that they believe are false.”
Fast forward to January 1, 2023. Under the provisions of legislation enacted by the 2022 General Assembly, each school board must have in place by that date a policy dealing with notifying parents of “any instructional material that includes “sexually explicit content.” Such policy must contain provisions relating to:
1. Ensuring parental notification;
2. Directly identifying the specific instructional material and sexually explicit subjects; and
3. Permitting the parent of any student to review instructional material that includes sexually explicit content and provide, as an alternative, nonexplicit instructional material and related academic activities to any student whose parent so requests.
What should happen to a teacher who, citing the “Tanner Cross doctrine,” refuses to abide by this policy? In her defense, she contends that she should not be forced “to promote ideologies” such as censorship in this case, that are harmful to students. Furthermore, she objects to compiling a list of “sexually explicit materials,” since her understanding of “sexually explicit” may differ from the understanding of some parents and she should not be forced to define material in a manner with which she disagrees. Finally, the ideas expressed in these works (for examples, let us say Beloved or Catcher in the Rye) should be “fiercely protected” in schools.
