GSA Conflict: Trouble in River City, or opportunity?

Like most midwesterners, and even more so, midwestern clergypersons, I’m not fond of conflict.

So, I don’t write the following with the intent to "stir the pot," but instead to share some thoughts and invite dialogue.

If you’re not aware of it, there is conflict within the West Bend School District over the district recognizing the Gay Straight Alliance student group as an official student club. The GSA has been in existence since 2002 but only recently sought this status.  In a 3-3 vote the School Board denied their request, and the GSA has filed suit arguing unjustifiable discrimination.  Further details are published on JSOnline.com.

There are a few assumptions that I want to lay out. First, sexual orientation is not a choice.  Sexual behavior may be, but the gender to which we are attracted is not the result of a decision. 

Second, adolescents who are suspected of being, assumed to be, or known to be gay-lesbian in their sexual orientation are often the targets of malicious abuse, both physical and emotional by their peers. 

Third, providing a safe and functional (read nonthreatening) atmosphere for learning is, or certainly should be, one of the primary functions of a school.

Given those assumptions the GSA makes good sense. But does the organization meet the criteria for being recognized and supported in the way other school clubs are?

The rationale of the board’s objection appears to be that the group does not have sufficient connection with the curriculum of the school. But isn’t human sexuality part of the school curriculum? Aren’t peer relationships? Isn’t bullying? Isn’t the study of cultural norms, prejudices and morality part of the curriculum?  (If it isn’t, I’d say it should be.)

I think the students have made a case for a significant enough connection, one equal to the marshal arts club or the Key Club and so deserving of support.

The objection expressed in many comments in the paper has been based in religion.  My response to those objections is less ambiguous and circumspect. It would be these words from a preacher in answer to a young person who asked, "Where is Jesus?"

"If you wish to find Jesus, to follow Jesus, then go stand with the outcast, the broken, the bullied, the beaten. And do so not caring about what rules are written or unwritten, what is going to gain friends or anything else. Do it caring about your neighbor’s pain because there, with your neighbor in pain, is your Savior. And your salvation."

Few of us are comfortable thinking about or discussing this. We want it — we want "them," to go away.  But if we live in community, "they" are "us."  And if some of us are being mistreated or abused, shouldn’t we offer support beyond our discomfort and differing opinions?