Having spent my career at the University of Illinois at Chicago, I've seen my fair share of students toting logic textbooks across campus. I know that in their first weeks of Intro to Logic, they trudge through the classic building blocks of arguments and fallacies. For some, the experience becomes a formative moment in their ability to analyze situations. For others, it teaches them how to control a debate. Of course, there are also those who will get nothing more than a D.
The case that was heard in a California courtroom regarding high school student Rebekah Rice's use of the phrase "That's so gay" suggests to me that logic, arguments, and fallacies are alive and well outside of the classroom – unfortunately not always to the benefit of students.
The issue at hand is whether a student who was being teased for being Mormon was guilty of employing hate speech when she responded to the question "Do you have 10 moms?" with "That's so gay." The subsequent issue has become whether the school administration, which penalized Rice, violated her First Amendment rights.
The now-infamous phrase, according to current research, is heard by about 90 percent of students on a daily basis in this country. It doesn't refer to gay as Webster's might suggest but, in the student's own testimony, means, "that's so stupid, that's so silly, that's so dumb."
The student's punishment was quick: a trip to the principal's office and a written referral in her records. The student who made the joke that started the whole situation – a jab at Rice's Mormon background and conservative views on issues – was, it seems, not reprimanded.
To me, the larger issue here is that a teaching moment was lost in what has come to be a prolonged (and possibly politically motivated) lawsuit and exacerbated by a school administration with good intentions but poor execution.
As a father to two sons, one gay and one straight, I can appreciate the need to create an educational environment where both feel safe from harassment but free to express themselves and their ideas. I would hope that had they been in this situation, the teacher in question would have been able to teach them the value of consistency.
Why didn't the zero-tolerance policy for harassment and teasing apply to Ms. Rice's religious background? Why didn't a discussion ensue about the fallacies that exist about Mormon families? Why wasn't it followed by a discussion about how harmful teasing is to gay kids? Why didn't the students gathered have an honest discussion that demonstrated that punitive punishments are less effective and more disruptive to the educational environment than trying to learn where these attacks come from?
The only lesson coming out of this incident is that the intent to do the right thing sometimes isn't good enough. Having a policy in place isn't sufficient. Making sure that students, educators, administrators, and parents alike understand the logic behind the rules is just as important as the rules themselves.
By swiftly addressing the issue, the school displayed good intentions. Administrators knew the stakes: A year prior to the incident, a gay student at the school had been attacked by two boys who were paid to beat him up, and the current punishment was no doubt a part of the action to make sure that gay bashing would not happen again. In addition, Rice's parents may have a greater political agenda at hand in making a point that they object to what they see as the school's tolerance for an unacceptable diversity category.
But all of these facts fall short of creating the good arguments from the old logic book.
Because an anti-gay comment is punished does not mean that a school is guilty of censorship. I can't think of a person who would argue that complete free speech exists in all cases.
Similarly, the school's response to "that's so gay" doesn't mean that its anti-harassment policies are in full working order. Policies, like laws, are only as good as they are understood and applied. Helping people understand this principle is a large part of the work that PFLAG does in districts around the country every single day.
Finally, possessing one variable – being gay, for example – does not preclude possessing another – being a person of faith. This incident shouldn't have been a matter of sexual orientation or faith, but of respect for both.
Anti-harassment and bullying policies work when they are clear, understood, and consistently applied. Application of the policy doesn't just mean punishment for some, but a learning moment for all. Just as the gay comment was wrong, so was the joke about religion.
The case at hand isn't an either/or equation, nor is it a page from Intro to Logic's list of fallacies, led by the famous slippery slope. We need to dig a little deeper into the subject and try to create a world where our kids are secure, whether they're different because of their religion or sexual orientation or any other diversity variable. Such efforts, in my book, would get an A+.
John Cepek is the national president of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. He and his wife, Char, reside in Chicago.