It was outright discrimination. Parents didn’t like it. They should have been referred to the Human Rights Code. If it goes to court the school will lose for sure.

The catholic church attack on sex ed curriculum and this catholic school attack on the teacher only makes people ask, how can these schools be tax supported? They do themselves far more damage than they understand.

In one way, it is essential for the administration of the school and the staff to all commit to follow the same goals, and priorities. One must set an example for the children. This case puzzles me, why the school hired a teacher, knowing she was a lesbian. Did she have the best skills of all the applicants, and this factor over-ride the stated goals of that school?  Hoping for the best, that parents would not find out she was a lesbian?

Hard to decide whether the school is evil or just stupid.

You cannot consider a person’s sexual orientation when hiring. You certainly cannot consider it in a firing.

This is wrong anywhere but can you imagine this in BC? It is the ground zero for gay rights in Canada.

BC law may be different from Ontario law, but in Ontario it is legal for Catholic schools to base hiring and firing decisions on factors that include “Catholicity”—fidelity to the tenets of the faith. This right takes precedence over usual Human Rights legislation when it can be demonstrated that the factor involved is fundamental to Catholic doctrine. That’s why Catholic schools can require the recommendation of a priest (to verify that the applicant is a communicant in good standing) before hiring a teacher.

BC law may be different, of course.

A private religious school in Alberta tried to fire a gay male teacher because it did not meet their criteria. They lost in court.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, private religious institutions are exempted from some sections of the BC Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are entitled to impose and enforce “morality” clauses on their members and employees. Doug Little should be aware of this—OSSTF was an intervener in one significant precedent on this point, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001scc31/2001scc31.html :Trinity Western University v. BC College of Teachers

The facts of today’s case are in dispute. It appears that the teacher has not been fired, is on a one-year contract that would not have been renewed in any case (she is on leave from the Vancouver public school board), and is being paid in full for the duration of her contract. Whether the employer has breached the terms of employment will depend very much on the language of the contract, but one can infer that this teacher signed the contract with its “Catholicity” requirement with an understanding of what that entailed, or that she should have done so.

A feature on tonight’s As It Happens confirmed that, as I suspected, the issue is the “Catholicity” clause in her contract, and the employer states that she is not being prevented from contact with students because of her sexual orientation (which they apparently knew about), but because of certain behaviours, which were not specified.  Facebook was mentioned, however. Any teacher who “friends” his or her students on Facebook is a bleeping idiot (I don’t know if this teacher did that). Details of the teacher’s private life. no matter his or her gender or orientation, should not be shared with students.  Email or online communication with students should be through school channels exclusively.  Many teachers have got themselves disciplined (or fired) through inappropriate emails and text messaging to students.

Regardless of our personal opinions, religious schools (including Ontario Catholic schools) have the legal right to impose “morality” requirements on their employees. Prospective employees who disagree or disapprove should not accept the job. We don’t know the specifics of this teacher’s behaviour that have concerned the employer (media speculation is often inaccurate), but the “Catholicity”  requirement has stood up in court before and is operational in Catholic schools here. There may also be a “management rights” clause in her contract that gives the administrators the right to assign the teacher to other duties as required.  So, while this may be a media flap, I doubt that any legal action will be fruitful.

The issue is not having a school focus collectively on achieving certain goals or being committed to the same mission. The issue is that the collective goal/mission of the school runs counter to any kind of Canadian Human Rights legislation.

One could argue that schools who believe all blacks are inferior and welcome a return to slavery also share a common mission. However, should those schools be funded with tax dollars? What makes teaching similarly about gays and Lesbians so different?