Newsletter July 2001

From BCTF website at:
http://www.bctf.bc.ca/Publications/StaffRepNews/Archive/2000-01/2001-05-01.html
On May 17, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in an eight-to-one decision that Trinity Western University has the right to train teachers for public school classrooms despite its condemnation of homosexual activity as a grave sin. TWU will take full control of its teacher-education programs in the fall of 2002. Until now, TWU students have been required to take the last year of their teacher-training at SFU. The B.C. College of Teachers had sought to restrict the private Christian university's ability to train teachers, citing fears that its graduates might discriminate against lesbians and gays. The BCTF agreed with the BCCT. Both groups expressed disappointment with the ruling, but are pleased that the court said that teachers are not entitled to act on antihomosexual beliefs and that any discriminatory conduct could result in disciplinary action.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment:
When the Supreme Court decides in an eight-to-one decision that our College of Teachers are wrong, it's time to sit up and take notice. What could be more important than ensuring that future teachers are not in any way likely to discriminate against gay students? That was the goal of the College's pursuit of this matter. The way this is reported (see above) indicates an unwillingness to understand the Court's rationale for the decision.

In my opinion, this case, which we will all be paying for for some time, was a grave error from its inception. It revealed hidden prejudices that I rarely hear challenged in the teaching profession. A few phone calls might have cleared up misconceptions and saved the membership thousands of dollars.

If the Court had decided in favour of the College, it could have opened the way for rampant discrimination, allowing action to be taken against groups deemed capable of violating the letter or spirit of a law. A number of Trinity Western graduates are members of BCCT and BCTF. Never has a TWU graduated teacher been found to discriminate against anyone regardless of religious and political beliefs or sexual conduct or orientation. The Supreme Court noted that there was NO EVIDENCE of unethical behavior by TWU graduates who were targeted as POTENTIAL homophobes. What if the B.C. College of Teachers decided to consider the potential unethical/ subversive/ corrupting influences of say, communists, or adulterers, or Muslims in the teaching community? People who belong to certain clubs or political parties? It can go on forever. Have we learned nothing from history? The Supreme Court decided that there was something more important than the College's concerns. Time will tell if the BCCT and the BCTF figure out what that may be.

This BCTF report stated that Trinity considered homosexuality activity to be a grave sin. Orthodox Christian beliefs hold that any sexual activity outside "holy matrimony" is sin. It would be inconsistent for TWU to forbid one type of sex and allow another type outside of marriage. It would be ludicrous to make TWU go against these Orthodox Christian beliefs. The issue isn’t homosex or hetrosex, it is about having any type of sex outside of marriage.

Is this not persecution, forcing people to recant certain aspects of their faith or face consequences - in this case, to be forbidden or limited in their participation in the public school system which their taxes support. (A secular, inclusive public school system which was founded by Christians, but that's for another history lesson, kids!) And let us give some thought to those Trinity graduates who have had to support the legal onslaught
against their university by their forced membership in the BCCT! Are some members more equal than others?

The article also stated that the BCTF supported the College! Now, I have listened for the past two years for any indication of support from the BCTF, and I've never heard it. Does anyone know when the BCTF made a decision to support the BCCT? It wasn't at an AGM. It may have been reported and I missed it. In any case, I do not understand how the BCTF or the BCCT believe that they are being true to the "regardless of creed" part of their mandate. For people who care about social justice, they were asleep at the switch when they let this one go, both at the time of the court case, and now at the time of reporting it. The BCTF has passed some policy that shows respect and openness for religious diversity. It would be nice if this openness would extend to graduates of a TWU teacher program.

I was puzzled by the self-congratulatory tone of the final sentence: "Both groups expressed disappointment with the ruling, but are pleased that the court said that teachers are not entitled to act on antihomosexual beliefs and that any discriminatory conduct could result in disciplinary action." Ironically, that was exactly the point of the ruling against the BCCT, that no one HAD acted in a discriminatory way.

PREP has been adamant from the beginning that we regard the safety and well-being of all students, regardless of differences, to be of paramount importance. That includes those students who identify themselves as sexual minorities. We hope the day will soon dawn when all teachers and students, regardless of religious orientation, feel similarly welcomed and protected.

Top of Page

One of the priorities of Teachers' PREP is to be supportive of our union's role in working to represent teachers at the provincial and local bargaining table. Representation in contract negotiations is on every teacher's mind in a bargaining year and because of the complex nature of the process (see the flowchart) it is good to have the union's expertise and legal team there for us. The essential service legislation proposed by the new BC government will undoubtedly add complexity (and a lot of time and money) to the process of contract negotiations. In fact a whole new layer of negotiations for determining essential service levels at each work site may be introduced. Imagine the cost of doing a school by school analysis of staff duties (not just teachers but CUPE too) and then having BCPSEA, the BCTF and CUPE battle through each item with their legal teams and the Labor Relations Board if agreement isn't reached. Our next contract may not be completed by the time most of us retire if this process gets sucked into the black hole of legal wrangling. The BCTF website is a good source for more information on what teachers may be facing if this legislation passes.
http://www.bctf.ca/bargain/negotiations/rights/essentials.html

Every teacher should take time to familiarize themselves with the issue before diving into the urgency of starting up classes this fall. Making the withdrawal or interruption of services in education illegal (which is what essential service legislation may boil down to) will take away a legitimate union action in the event that the majority of membership vote against a contract offer. In a free and civil society we've learned to expect that there are processes to be followed when differences arise between the employer and employees. In the past, the type of legal strikes that have been permitted in public education have happened in an orderly fashion with certain criteria met: the majority of union membership supported it in a vote, advance notice was given to parents and students, no risk was posed to the safety of children. Was it an inconvenience to students and parents? Of course! Was it pain free for teachers? Of course not ... no one pays the rent or mortgage easily on strike pay. Was it a peaceful and orderly means for teachers to communicate serious reservations about progress in contract negotiations and did it assist our union's position in bargaining on our behalf? I think so. Without the possibility of teachers taking significant job action after voting to reject a contract offer, our bargaining team has no meaningful consequences to back up the concerns it raises with the employer.

A strike is not pleasant for anyone and is certainly seen as a last resort when trying to hammer out a collective agreement, but the prospect of an imposed agreement over which teachers have little influence is an unpleasant alternative to face. How will essential service legislation ensure that public school teachers still have meaningful representation in solving the problems that affect their work with students? Our collective agreement has become an effective tool for ensuring smaller class sizes for students and support for those with special needs. If the new era in British Columbia diminishes the ability of teachers to have their concerns taken seriously in contract language then this weakens our position as partners in education. It will be important for us to speak publicly about the downside of making education an essential service. At least this action won't be considered illegal.

I read in the President’s Thoughts (issue 23) with great interest the debate about teacher awards. As you know the district decided to institute a teacher award program and our union voted to boycott the awards at its general meeting in May. Let us look at the issue from a number of different angles.

First, let us talk about how the boycott came about. During the general meeting in May our president gave his report as he does at every meeting. He proceeded to discuss the awards and the lack of consultation between the board and the union on the issue. One person stood after the president’s remarks and made a motion to boycott the awards program and it passed overwhelmingly. Here are my concerns:

1. No member was told that this issue would be voted on at the general meeting even though this was the second of two meetings. Those members who felt strongly one way or the other may have attended if they had known.

2. Less than 100 people made a decision that affected over 4000 members.

3. More opportunity for member input or discussion about the idea of awards, the process of teacher awards or the value of such awards should have been given prior to the general meeting. This could have occurred through staff discussions or through a STARA meeting.

My second concern is this notion that “all teachers are good teachers and deserve recognition”. I am not going to insult your intelligence by arguing that all teachers are equally effective at what they do. We all know from our own experiences as educators that there are those teachers who are “Master” teachers and who demonstrate outstanding practices on a day to day basis (just like there are top plumbers, lawyers and athletes). By celebrating the “Master” teachers in our district we simply encourage all teachers to strive for excellence and we hold up a standard for all to reach. So why not celebrate the success of others. Only our pride would stop us from feeling great when others are recognized for excellence.

The third issue raised was criteria and how people chose the teachers who win. Well the criteria certainly could be established and a panel of people could make the selections. All awards would be subject to a committee decision and we as educators should be involved in helping set the objective criteria.

Finally, there are concerns about the money involved and quite frankly I have no problem giving a cash reward for the excellence shown by a teacher. Let us encourage them to continue to do excellent work in their classrooms. Millions and millions of dollars are spent on all sorts of projects so why not celebrate and reward those who continue to push the envelope and who develop fantastic units and activities? I firmly believe that those who do excellent work in our district should be rewarded and encouraged to continue to strive for excellence. We could all use a pat on the back to keep going. Wouldn’t it be great if the STA and Board could find a way to acknowledge those teachers who go over and beyond and who truly are “Master” teachers. Wouldn’t you like a pat on the back once in a while?

BCTF Awards

Top of Page

There are many questions that come to mind when I think of social justice as a priority within the STA. Recent minutes of the STA Executive indicate that social justice items be given priority in any budget discussions at STA meetings.

“That the Executive give priority to projects which promote Social Justice in recommending project funding to membership.” 2001.04.17

1. Why should social justice take priority in discussions during a bargaining year?

2. Was the membership involved in the adoption of the STA Executive's budget policy?

3. Wouldn't this issue be a great candidate for a school by school poll to see what the membership thinks?

There seems to be a tendency to accept the notion of social justice as an understood priority by many teachers. We all want to see that students and colleagues are treated with dignity and respect regardless of all of the "isms". But consider some of these questions:

1. Is the STA the only way teachers contribute toward promoting social justice?

2. What if the some of the membership sees social justice in a broader context than the STA Executive?

3. What if some of the membership disagree with the support of certain sanctioned STA social justice causes?

4. Should our dues and our energies go toward supporting social justice issues that may be divisive to our membership?

5. What if a group of another political persuasion dominated the STA? Would we allow our union to support "right-wing" issues?

Let's consider the implications of a social justice issue that is very timely. The "three book case" is, I understand from the press, going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. This is a lawsuit that has been filed by individuals, private petitioners. We have already contributed $80,000 via the BCTF and a smaller amount from the STA. Some teachers I'm sure think this is right and good. Other teachers see it as a huge waste of money. There is reason to believe we will be asked to contribute to this new appeal as well.

I believe that private petitioners may ask for funds from sympathetic members, but they should not expect to be given money from the membership. Several of us are proposing a motion in the fall which would put limits on union funding for private petitioners, but would allow petitioners to publicize the place where donations toward the case may be made. This way, those teachers who want to support the petitioners have the opportunity. The use of union dues for private lawsuits is problematic, whatever the issue.

Issues of social justice may seem clear at first blush, but it is a complex topic with many philosophical and political facets. Why not have some feedback from teachers and let colleagues discuss social justice as a priority before forging ahead with this policy to give it top billing for funding. A survey of our membership via a school by school staff poll could easily be done to gauge the level of support. Then again, a bargaining year may not be the best year to have this on the front burner. What do you think?

Top of Page