The dilemma we present here is real, told to us for your consideration. We change only the names and occasionally some of the details to protect privacy of the individuals and/or organizations involved. If you have an ethical dilemma that you would like to share, please contact the editorial staff at Independent School ([email protected]).
Independence Day School is a small college preparatory school serving grades 9–12, in rural Illinois. As part of its commitment to creating a safe school for all students, it adopted a "safe zone" classrooms policy. The policy states that classrooms where conversation about homosexuality is permitted are marked with inverted pink triangles. The policy was put in place to honor inclusivity, and each student is instructed about what "safe zone" classrooms are.
Kate Adler, a student who is open about her opinions and is well known throughout Independence Day for her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, came to school wearing a T-shirt that read "Straight Pride." Throughout the course of the day, three students reported to administrators that they felt the shirt was offensive. When approached by administration about the shirt, Kate did not feel that the shirt was inflammatory. She explained that the shirt was not meant to demean other students.
The school administrators had much to consider. On the one hand, they felt it right to allow the shirt to be worn because freedom of expression is important and a guaranteed civil liberty. On the other hand, the shirt had been reported as offensive by several students who felt the shirt — or Kate's decision to wear the shirt — was intimidating, and the school had an obligation to make all students feel safe.
The administrators considered the implications for the individual student wearing the shirt, and for the larger group of offended students. Is it better to have one student feel as though his or her rights are being infringed upon so that the community feels protected from both real and perceived intimidation? Or is it better to have one student feel heard while others could feel afraid? The school leadership also considered the short- and long-term implications of any decision they might make. By telling Kate that it is not appropriate to wear the shirt at Independence Day, will she be as open about her opinions in the future? But conversely, by allowing Kate to continue wearing the shirt, how serious will students think the school is about "safe zone" classrooms, and what are the potential adverse effects to the learning environment? The administrators felt caught between a rock and a hard place.
In the end, the school leaders decided to ban the shirt. They were swayed by an "ends-based" view that banning the shirt was better for the greater number involved, and that Kate needed to respect others' feelings. They felt a stronger obligation to the school as a community, especially to protect the culture they were trying to establish through the "safe zone" classrooms.
However, Kate's family responded with a "rule-based" viewpoint. They felt that, regardless of the outcome, the school should uphold the principal of free speech and freedom of thought. They felt so strongly against the school's decision that they sued the school.
In the end, the decision was reversed by a court ruling. The school was forced to allow Kate to wear the shirt that represented her less-popular viewpoint regarding sexual orientation.
In reflection, the school leaders might wish they had taken more of a "middle road" position in this case. While there was a strong argument to be made for upholding the core ethical values of the school's culture, Kate was a member of that culture, and a participant. We will never know what might have happened if Kate and the offended students had been given a chance to come up with a "third way out" of this dilemma — a way to both meet Kate's needs and meet those of the larger group.