[ad_1]
Stuff
“Mr [redacted] should have referred to the student by their preferred name and left it at that,” the Teacher’s Council said.
A maths teacher who refused to call a secondary student by their chosen name won’t be allowed to teach again.
The Teaching Council’s disciplinary tribunal decision found the man is not fit to be a teacher, having treated the student in an “extreme, offensive and hysterical way”.
In 2021, a student who was going through a gender transition opted to change their name and made their wishes clear to the school.
One teacher in particular refused, and continued to call them by their old name.
READ MORE:
* New Zealanders can now identify as non-binary on their birth certificate
* Report reveals abuse experienced by takatāpui and rainbow rangatahi in state care
* ‘I thought I wasn’t a person at all’: One family’s journey through gender
Having been found unfit to practice, and at risk of doing the same to another student in similar circumstances, his teaching registration was cancelled.
He is also ordered to pay $582 in costs to the tribunal and $5668 to the Complaints Assessment Committee. The costs were discounted from $18,896 and $1455 initially sought.
In the summary of facts, it’s outlined how the teacher refused to call the student by their preferred name, met with the student during morning tea and told them transitioning was “against his religion”, and “didn’t want [the student] to go down the path of sin.”
The teacher then met with the school’s principal and reiterated his refusal to use the student’s preferred name.
In his submissions to the Teaching Council on whether his actions should be considered serious misconduct, the teacher – whose name is withheld – cited bible verses. The submissions “cause serious concern to this Tribunal,” the decision states.
He said if he had called the student by a boy’s name he would “not be acting in her best interest or the best interest of society”.
In its decision published this week, the Teaching Council’s disciplinary tribunal said for a trusted adult to ignore the student’s wishes and advise them their decision was wrong “risked quite significant harm”.
“On the evidence it appears that the student had handled Mr [redacted]’s conduct very bravely… however it should never have been for the student to try and negotiate a compromise with Mr [redacted].”
(The student had offered the teacher to use their old name but at least to use their preferred pronouns. The teacher still refused).
The decision said the teacher was not qualified to offer advice on gender dysphoria, “particularly based on [their] personal Christian views”.
“Mr [redacted] should have referred to the student by their preferred name and left it at that.”
The decision said the teacher’s behaviour was “completely inappropriate and out of line”, and “transgressed well outside the boundaries of a teacher’s role”.
The student’s names, the teacher’s name, and the names of the school and town it is in are all withheld.
In his submissions, the teacher argued his position with support from Bible verses and his Christian belief.
He said the student’s transition presents a risk they will also become homosexual.
He said he would be guilty of serious misconduct and child abuse had he called the child by their preferred name.
“Feelings of discomfort or unhappiness by a student do not mean that what is happening to them is not in their best interests or that they will not in the future be happy about someone’s action in their lives,” he said in his submissions.
The teacher went as far as comparing changing one’s name to potential circumstances of a child identifying as a different race, an animal – “a cat, a dog or a dinosaur,” or as “Your Honour.”
“Compelling me to call a girl student by a boy’s name is asking me to go against my core Christian belief, the belief that is also foundational for New Zealand,” he said.
On these points and others made in his submission, the Tribunal said “the arguments … may be welcome and normal within the context of Mr [redacted]’s private life and views. However, they are disgraceful when used in the present context.”
[ad_2]