PFOX Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays

Schools Sued for Hate

Below is the pertinent excerpt from PFOX's lawsuit against the Montgomery County, Maryland Public Schools (MCPS) for its failure to include former homosexuals in its new sex ed curriculum:

7. The Tolerance Section of the Lessons Fail to Teach Tolerance for Ex-gays and Therefore Do Not Serve Their Purpose and Harm Students.

Issues:

7(a) Do the lessons on teaching tolerance for sexual orientation, sexual identity, and gender identity fail to teach tolerance because former homosexuals are not included in those lessons?

7(b) Is the purpose of the lessons to teach tolerance as claimed by Respondents?

7(c) Are students harmed by the lessons’ exclusion of former homosexuals?

7(d) Is the ex-gay community subjected to intolerance by MCPS?

Facts:

The Additional Lessons were adopted, at least in part, for the purpose of eliminating any discrimination or hostility toward people based on their sexual orientation. Indeed, the lessons are entitled "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" and promote tolerance of homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, cross-dressers, and the intersexed. Yet the only sexual orientation in MCPS which receives no respect or tolerance is that of ex-gays. Respondents have not received any complaints of sexual orientation intolerance against gays, bisexuals, trangenders, or the intersexed.

Using its First Amendment right to distribute flyers to MCPS high school students which urged tolerance and understanding of the ex-gay community, Appellant PFOX and its message of tolerance were met with open hostility and blatant intolerance from some MCPS teachers and students. Almost all of these students are members of their school’s Gay Straight Alliance (“GSA”), a nationwide student club organized by Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (“GLSEN”), a gay advocacy group that promotes tolerance and approval of gay and transgendered individuals while opposing tolerance for former homosexuals. There are approximately 15 GSA or similar student clubs in the Montgomery County public high schools. GSA and GLSEN are the outside organizations which the curriculum uses for statistical data and as a referral source for students. Appeal at 37. Yet GLSEN/GSA clubs or their teacher sponsors in MCPS show contempt and hostility for former homosexuals and urge their schools to do the same.

For example, the GSA at Winston Churchill High School organized a protest against PFOX flyers which urge tolerance for the ex-gay community. According to GSA president Chloe Richard and GSA teacher sponsor Arthur Bescher, GSA members placed trash cans in the school lobby and distributed trash bags labeled “PFOX” to students to urge them to throw away their ex-gay flyers. The school’s administration supported this action, with security guards and the principal, Dr. Joan Benz, standing by the trash cans to ensure that the protest against ex-gays would not be disturbed.

A GSA student at Walter Johnson High School started a group on Facebook called “Keep PFOX – Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays – Out of Montgomery County Schools” and urged the school’s students to join her group. Another student, Emily Menase of Albert Einstein High School, wrote an editorial for the school newspaper denouncing support for former homosexuals and mischaracterizing PFOX’s message of tolerance for ex-gays as a “Christian” message. Kati Davenport, the GSA co-president at Walt Whitman High School, also opposed the ex-gay flyers and made erroneous statements about PFOX based on negative stereotypes about the ex-gay community.

Some MCPS teachers went so far as to deny ex-gays their First Amendment rights by refusing to distribute PFOX’s flyers. For example, Gaithersburg High School teachers Zach Kingman and Kurt Richter refused to distribute Appellant’s flyers to their students despite orders from the principal to do so. According to Kingman, he is “not worried about losing my job” and Richter “can’t imagine intelligent people handing this out.” Paul Dermont, a teacher at Winston Churchill, informed PFOX that “I find myself compelled, as do many of my colleagues, to fight further intrusion of your group into our public schools.” Mr. Dermont also falsely accused PFOX of “hate” for advocating tolerance for the ex-gay community.

Argument:

No other sexual orientation, gender identity, or sexual identity in MCPS receives the blatant harassment and intolerance that the ex-gay community is subjected to. In this kind of bullying atmosphere, it is impossible for students who have overcome or are attempting to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions to reveal themselves to their peers or teachers without being the objects of derision.

Similarly, students who admit to having ex-gay friends or family members are subject to harassment in MCPS’s hostile learning environment. For that matter, how can any student even consider tolerance for former homosexuals when his or her own principal is standing next to a garbage can encouraging him to dump his ex-gay flyer in the trash?

This disparity in treatment is not remedied by Respondent’s curriculum on teaching tolerance for sexual orientation, sexual identity, and gender identity because former homosexuals are not included in the curriculum. PFOX testified before the MCPS BOE about the MCPS system’s discriminatory and intolerant conduct. MCPS is very much aware of the bullying against ex-gays, in fact MCPS supports such bullying tactics as shown above. Its own administrators are in charge of the flyer censorship using Nazi tactics. Appeal at 40-43. Yet Respondent continues to refuse to include ex-gays in its so-called "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" curriculum. Its decision is arbitrary and unreasonable because it is contrary to sound educational policy to devise a curriculum for the alleged purpose of teaching “respect, empathy, and tolerance” for diverse sexual orientations/sexual identities while excluding the only sexual orientation in MCPS that is actually subject to an environment of bullying and harassment. COMAR 13A.01.05.05(B)(1).

Respondents have not received any complaints of sexual orientation intolerance or discrimination against gays, bisexuals, transgenders, the intersexed, or cross-dressers. But former homosexuals are subjected to ridicule and prejudice within MCPS. In light of the hostility shown to the ex-gay community by the MCPS system, including some of the CAC members, as detailed in Appellant’s Appeal at 40-43, reasoning minds could not have reasonably reached the same conclusion as MCPS BOE that ex-gays should not be included in the tolerance portion of the curriculum. COMAR 13A.01.05.05(B)(2).

This is a critical issue which deserves full adjudication before an ALJ [Administrative Law Judge].