Secondary school assistant sacked after posting petition against transgender issues being taught at her son's CofE primary

[TimeLady]

Devoutly Christian secondary school assistant, 43, is sacked after posting petition against transgender issues being taught at her son's CofE primary

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6925837/School-assistant-43-sacked-posting-petition-against-transgender-teaching-sons-school.html

I do not think that it necessarily the case that the GMC is any slower than other bureaucracies - it is just more acceptable to apply summary justice to Christians.

The difference in timing is more likely because of the circumstances. There's a difference between how an employer such as a school might discipline an employee & how a professional licencing body such as the GMC investigates complaints against a doctor.

I would be more concerned that any TA had appropriate Union representation in disciplinary situations. Many TAs are badly treated and on insecure contracts.

It's a C of E Primary School. In the C of E, it is (unfortunately) illegal to hold a same-sex wedding. So the petition is consistent with the current position of the church. It seems dogmatically Christophobic for the secondary school to sack this woman for her religious beliefs.

In other news... a new campaign called "Equal" for same-sex marriage to be allowed in the C of E has been launched

From BBC article:
(extract)
"The Christian Legal Centre said the school where she worked carried out an investigation and concluded Ms Higgs should be dismissed for "illegal discrimination", "serious inappropriate use of social media" and "online comments that could bring the school into disrepute and damage the reputation of the school".

The centre said it was helping with Ms Higgs' legal challenge for unfair dismissal and discrimination.

The academy told Ms Higgs she was dismissed "for reasons other than your religion".

It said the statutory rights of its staff were "not absolute".

It added: "We are concerned you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school's requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others and to role model such behaviour".
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-47946755

Wiki
The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) is a legal organization which was set up in December 2007 to provide legal support for Christians in the United Kingdom and lobby on their behalf. They are linked to the Christian Concern campaigning organisation
Since its inception, the CLC has provided legal support in a number of high-profile cases in the UK. Most of them have been unsuccessful. (continues with examples of cases undertaken)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Centre

The difference in timing is more likely because of the circumstances

I know what you mean, but I still think the GMC would have moved quicker and more decisively if the 'offences' were of a Christian nature.

I think the woman, in this case, is a social worker - a 'pastoral assistant' so she definitely will not get any help from the unions! She is being supported by Christian Concern. I just don't think that it will be in anyone's interests if she loses this case. Dark forces are battling to gain control of the hearts, minds and bodies of very young children. If parents have to yield all control to a state that is in the grip of a pernicious ideology where will this all end?

"The Christian Legal Centre said the school where she worked carried out an investigation and concluded Ms Higgs should be dismissed for "illegal discrimination", "serious inappropriate use of social media" and "online comments that could bring the school into disrepute and damage the reputation of the school".

However,

"In the conclusion to Kristie's hearing, the academy admitted that: "Regarding bringing the school into disrepute…we agree that there is no direct evidence that as a matter of fact that the reputation of the school has been damaged to date."

When Kristie asked who she had discriminated against, she was told by the school: "you had not directly discriminated against one person, rather it was about the words you had used that could be perceived as discrimination."

Her facebook posts were available only to her friends so could not even be classified as 'on-line activism.'

As a linguistic term, I find it fascinating how the word ‘normal’ is now a synonym for acceptable. Same sex relationships are not statistically ‘normal’, although they are becoming more common.

But a minority isn't necessarily "not normal". Otherwise it would supposedly be "not normal" to have red hair, get a nursing degree or play the guitar.

I think the woman, in this case, is a social worker - a 'pastoral assistant' so she definitely will not get any help from the unions!

I was just coming back to acknowedge my mistake in referring to the role being that of a Teaching Assistant, apologies.

If a person working in school is a qualified social worker then they would have access to union/professional support should they wish.
Pastoral support roles in schools can be filled by people from a range of backgrounds & with a range of qualifications.

Thank you to SaskiaRembrandt and others for explaining things so well. Her views are discriminatory, no two ways about it (the bit where she says children are being brainwashed). It’s whether the punishment isn’t a bit harsh for what she thought was private stuff. I think we’ve all posted stupid shit or “liked” stuff without thinking too much and this is a reminder to be more cautious. I’m a bit on the fence.

PlatypusLeague yes I agree with the way normal is being interpreted as acceptable rather than just the norm, most usual form. Personally I've never aspired to be normal, I've always liked the idea of being different. I don't consider it an automatic insult. I suppose it's part of the idea of 'othering'

Despite the rather snide and patronising insinuation that I spend my life on SM and the DM, saskia, I’ll bite. I’m in fact a full time professional in a tangentially- related field, and I’m afraid I don’t see evidence of a sensible consensus on the distinction between GC views and transphobia. (Nor do I see any sensible definition of what the latter is, which is the root of the problem.) I see great nervousness about the consequences of voicing GC opinions, and complete obsequiousness to anyone identifying as trans. Their pronouncements can never be contradicted. They are the oracle.
It’s not a climate in which open debate is possible.

So it would appear that it was very easy, too easy, for this Lady’s employer to fire her, as she was a precarious un-unionised pastoral worker.

I’m fairly sure her being female and Christian in a world that is now openly disdainful of religious faith, made giving her the boot that much sweeter.

No one’s employer should have the right to terminate one’s employment as a result of an open and legitimate political campaign.

Social media clauses deny those who sign them, as a condition of their employment, the right to any form of online activism their employer regards problematic. So yes, they do prevent online activism to women, disproportionately, in a political world which men dominate. Given that teachers are also denied activism on their own behalf, only 1 legal reason to strike, the one reason teachers don't strike and all that fuckwittery, I don't think 'the powers that be' give a toss how much they restrict activism, male, female, online or real world!

Hang on - Ms Higgs should be dismissed for "illegal discrimination", Have the police been involved then, that is a ridiculous statement. Where's the complainant.

I think it's pretty obvious from the wording of the Facebook post that this woman has some homophobic views. Is that appropriate in her job? I think if she's publicly airing this kind of stuff on social media then the school she works at have a duty to act. Just because she's critical of transgender does that make the other stuff fine for you? 🙄
I think it says a lot about the instincts of many posters on this board now that that woman is being given support. Being anti-trans takes precedence it would appear!

. Just because she's critical of transgender does that make the other stuff fine for you?

I don’t think she is clearly anti transgender. She seems more clearly against same-sex relationships being taught in classrooms to young children.

I don’t share her views re: same sex marriage/unions but I stand with her against the thought police who feel entitled to hound her from her job ‘cause they don’t share her beliefs.

There is zero evidence that her views influenced her behaviour in her job, none.

Her employers just can’t stand anyone with a divergent opinion, only sheep can be gainfully employed these days.

Its also (as always) worth being cautious about drawing absolute conclusions/forming alligencies about those involved in an employment case from a couple of brief articles.

Many people are asserting what 'definitely' happened.
Its not known, what is being expressed are peoples opinions often based on assuptions which may or may not be the case.

It seems there is an appeal being organised therefore its likely that public statements are appropriately limited.

There is zero evidence that her views influenced her behaviour in her job, none.
I think it's not unreasonable to assume that someone who believes (for example) that gay sexuality and relationships are not 'normal' will bring that attitude to work, whether overtly or not. In this case, she has a pastoral role in a secondary school. So she will be in contact with young people going through all sorts of things, very possibly exploring their sexuality. Is she the right person to provide non-judgemental support? She just announced put her homophobic views all over Facebook!

I'm not suggesting that we police people's views but if you work with young people then you're held to a certain standard. I feel sorry for this woman and I'm sure she's very well-meaning, but I don't think we should be giving ignorance a free pass on schools, where it could affect vulnerable teenagers.

I'm not suggesting that we police people's views but if you work with young people then you're held to a certain standard. I feel sorry for this woman and I'm sure she's very well-meaning, but I don't think we should be giving ignorance a free pass on schools, where it could affect vulnerable teenagers.

The role a person has is very relevent especially when supporting children & vulnerable young people.

Cellibababies
I'm pro women's rights, not anti trans. There's is a massive difference......
Just think about it. Pro Women's rights means being vocal about Women's Sex based rights, not gender made up bullshit.
This woman expressed her opinion and I don't think she should lose her job because of her religious beliefs.
I would be happy with my children being told that same sex attraction is normal, not weird and that anybody can have a completely fulfilled life with a same sex partner/husband/wife. And raise a family, have a life, just like everyone else does.
For me the difficulty arises when the T enters any conversation.
It's so very wrong that children maybe are being taught that if you are a girl and like girls, and are not happy with your body, then you must be a boy. Or if you're boy who likes boys and pink then you must be a girl. It's massive Homophobia, to anyone who can't see that.....
I won't and never will buy into the Big Fat Lie, that humans can change sex.
I've just decided that I'm not Gender Critical, I'm Sex critical.

Absolutepowercorrupts as far as I can see, none of what you've written is relevant to the discussion as to whether expressing homophobic views on Facebook is appropriate behaviour for someone working in a school. I doubt the woman in question is a self-identified gender critical feminist. But maybe you just wanted to give me the full FWR spiel in case I hadn't come across it before .

Sorry, just reread and saw this
This woman expressed her opinion and I don't think she should lose her job because of her religious beliefs.
which I guess means she should be ok to be homophobic on Facebook although confusingly, this seems to be contradicted by what you say next? Not quite sure where you stand on that. Maybe I'm just misreading you .

Presumably there were potentially two issues.

Firstly, if she worked close it home as most TA's do, she will have been talking about her employer as the schools will have been in the same local authority. I'm personally not sure that would enough though to be sacked because she talks generally about education. Obviously there may be a backstory where her LA is doing training or promoting.

Presumably the issue was the second 'point' - her post suggests she will not be prepared to teach unbiasedly. I am assuming that this was explored with her and she felt unable to say that she would fulfil her role.

Obviously guessing a lot as we really only have scant details.

Her panel found no evidence of her bringing the institution into disrepute:

www.theguardian.com/education/2019/apr/16/school-assistant-loses-job-over-petition-against-lgbt-teaching

She posted her Facebook posts under her maiden name, so posted in a way not directly related to her professional standing.

Her request/ petition was to obtain rights to remove her child from RSE classes, at a different school.

I also will be seeking to remove my kids from these lessons, and will be doing so as I am certain the transgender component promotes early sexualisation, blurs boundaries of consent and offers fake solutions to gender dysphoria.. and that is not my full list of issues.

As it stands, many of you would place me in the same category as this woman, as deserving to loose her livelihood for seeking to raise her children as she sees fit.

I am the poster earlier who said the bar is high for dismissal. I said it in the context of a gender studies professor wishing to have a public discussion about gender with another professor.

The bar should be high for dismissal and I do suspect it's been lowered too far here in terms of the reputational risk gross misconduct decision. I get the impression they are acting pre-emptively in fear of aggressive campaigning against the school.
The prevailing culture does drive the decision making. I'm reliably informed that the final gay cake ruling was heavily influenced by the religious context of the local politics. The reverse has happened here.

Anyway it is not advisable to decide on the unfairness of a dismissal with information in two media articles, I am glad she is getting support for an employment tribunal who are less personally involved in the reputation of the school.

We have lost all sense of proportion.

As it stands, many of you would place me in the same category as this woman, as deserving to loose her livelihood for seeking to raise her children as she sees fit.

I don't think anyone has said or intimated this.
There are complex wider issues which affect all children.
There is a need for calm, informed & nuanced consideration