This story, which came to me via e-mail, for some reason disturbed me a lot. I'm not sure why -- it's of a piece with so many stories recently about rabidly right-wing parents assaulting schools who try to deal with reality. (See this story, from the Brisbane Courier-Mail, and this one, from 365gay.com).
Maybe because in the St. Andrew's case, the discrimination is coming from the left, from a school that prides itself on openness and diversity, run by a denomination that is, at least, grappling honestly with the issue of gays.
One thing that struck me is that at no point, apprently, did the school administration address the issues openly with the students and parents. This was all behind closed doors stuff. What is the message there? "It's OK to be different if you keep it hidden"? Or is it simply "Don't worry, we know what's best"?
From the comments published, it seems that to the overwhelming majority of students and parents, the real issue was the rumors and the administration's reaction, not the teacher's acting roles. The students and most of the parents seem to feel this man is an exceptional teacher and the administration should have fought to keep him.
The headmaster's statement to parents, which is on the school's website, comes well after the fact and strikes me as essentially self-serving. He stresses that Mr. Giombetti "chose" to leave, while dismissing the thinly veiled threats from Giombetti's supervisor reported by Giombetti. (Considering what the context must have been, it's clear Giombetti didn't feel he had much of a choice.) This, I think, in light of the outcry from students and parents, is pretty much a CYA vehicle. "Working with" in this instance, based on the news reports and Giombetti's statements, seems to mean "do it our way or else." What's to work? As far as I'm concerned, a schoolteacher is entitled to a life, and not all of it needs to be under the school administration's supervision. I realize it's sort of foreign to the monotheistic world view, but the best solution is just to treat people like thinking, independent beings and level with them. (Apparently, one reason the students loved the teacher is that he did just that.)
And this is coming from the Left, to all intents and purposes. Maybe I'm getting too cynical, but I think I have reason: I remember too many instances from my own young manhood in which "liberal" friends and acquaintances couldn't quite keep the condescending tone hidden when my relationships came up. The worst part is, I think these people had convinced themselves that they were truly accepting of my life. I don't really think that attitude has changed much -- we're still not real people to most of the country, no matter how many of us are out.
I know -- it takes time, and continued contact, and a lot of challenging people on their basic assumptions and their habit of accepting without question whatever they hear from someone with an agenda.
It still pisses me off.
2 comments:
Scoot, I just want to point out one detail before I jump in -- the teacher appeared in the role a year before he took the teaching job. Are we going to have to live our lives in fear of someone who might have authority over us someday won't approve of everything we've done?
Which segues nicely into the larger issue. You noted that you would be embarrassed for your students to see you in a role in which you appeared nude or something similar.
Why is that more embarrassing than appearing on stage as a drug addict, an alcoholic, a hooker, or something subject to, one would think, heavy moral opprobrium?
If you've dealt with questions of vulnerability and self-consciousness enough to appear in the role to begin with, what's different?
And don't you think we have to get past those issues if we are ever going to rescue this country from its really sick, repressed attitude toward things physical?
So where does it start?
(I'm not advocating fucking on street corners in broad daylight -- I'll leave that to the straights [and yes, I've seen straight couples engage in similar behavior, if not that blatant (quite)] -- but nice discreet blowjobs in an alley during Pride parades are another story.)
Actually, I have worked with teenagers, as well as having been one (oh, man -- talk about body issues: went from being one of the shortest boys in 8th grade to being one of the tallest seniors in high school, and still only weighed 125 pounds), and I'm not going to dispute what you're saying at all.
Except that I'm not so sure that they don't want to see nudity on stage. Along with those body issues comes a great deal of curiosity. I have a feeling it's the public venue that is the most embarrassing to them.
Which sort of comes back to my basic question: is it fair, or even reasonable, to expect anyone, including teachers, to live their lives according to the standards of barely pubescent children?
Post a Comment