Deregistering a teacher who didn't go along with a trans student's new identity

 To whom it may concern

I am writing to express outrage at the decision to deregister a teacher
for refusing to call a student by her name which she had changed. This
is not serious misconduct. It may have upset the girl, but it is not
serious misconduct in my view.

I am challenging your organisation to have the moral courage to stand up
against whimsical name/gender changes which everyone must obey, and
which are often, arbitrary or reversible. If I am what I say I am then I
am a rock and I must ask you to refer to me as a rock and my pronouns
are "that" and "It's". Further if you call me she accidentally or
otherwise, go ahead, I wont get too upset.

Sady, serious misconduct is the three fingers pointing back at your
judgement and I judge you guilty. You are also setting a precedent and a
very powerful message out to all the children who are, with their
family, peer and teacher fanbase and support, joining in the fashion to
redesign themselves; namely that students can get teachers sacked if you
dont agree with their fantasy (whatever the fantasy is).

I am asking you to reconsider your position on this teacher. Perhaps a
conversation between  might have been in order rather than using a
slegehammer to kill an ant?

Duncan Hill (That/It's)

and the reply......

Tēnā koe, 

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I understand this is a difficult subject and the decision to cancel a teacher’s registration is one that is not take lightly. It is important to note that the NZ Teachers’ Disciplinary Tribunal is a panel of experienced teachers and an experienced lawyer – that is, they are teachers teaching every day, who were peers of this teacher, who made this decision. It is the intention of the Tribunal to always look to find a rehabilitative solution to support teachers to continue to teach. However, in this instance, it was clear to the Tribunal that the teacher was unwilling to learn how to hold strong personal Christian beliefs and work with learners who also might have strong personal beliefs, that are in contradiction to his own. It is possible to be true to your own belief and be a teacher. In fact, it is an everyday situation for all teachers. However, they cannot use their position of power and influence to attempt to enforce their views on their students. Teachers of course can and do have personal beliefs and views on all kinds of potentially divisive subjects including political, ethnical, and religious, and they are entitled to have them. I want to emphasise – the reason for cancellation was not that the teacher had strong personal beliefs, it was that he shared them with the student in an extreme and offensive manner. The Tribunal noted that “Whilst the role of a teacher will from time to time require the application of some paternalism in the lives of their students, this conduct was completely inappropriate and out of line. It risked belittling the student and minimising a huge personal event occurring in his life. It transgressed well outside the boundaries of a teacher’s role.” In fact, the teacher’s actions were explicitly against the Code of Professional Responsibility teachers sign up to. The matter was not as simple as the teacher refusing to use the new name and pronouns of the student – which is detailed in the full decision, which I have linked below for you and encourage you to read. This teacher is not being punished for his beliefs. He can no longer teach, because he would not keep his personal views to himself, even when asked by the student and the principal. You can read the Code of Professional Responsibility below, however, of note is the statement in the Code that says, “I will work in the best interests of learners by being fair and effectively managing my assumptions and personal beliefs.” The Code was published in 2017 and the fact this statement is part of the teachers Code shows that this is a normal everyday part of being a teacher. Further, in the Code are the values, and Manaakitanga is described as the teacher will “treat everyone with dignity and respect.” This is not aspirational; it is fair and reasonable. 2 In this instance the teacher did not meet these expectations. However, the Complaints Assessment Committee called for a rehabilitative penalty of censure, training, and a mentor as you can see in the decision document (para 37). Following the Tribunal Hearing, the most serious penalty of cancellation was deemed appropriate, as it was evident to the Tribunal that this teacher was not willing to learn and would likely cause harm in the future in a similar situation. You might note in the decision the Tribunal says the teacher's defence of the charge was offensive and hysterical. I wanted to take the opportunity to explain this in detail for you, as it was important to me that you understood the basis for the decision and the Tribunal’s practice to only ever cancel Registration in situations where it is absolutely necessary. 

Nāku noa, nā 

Lesley Hoskin Tāhūhū Rangapū | Chief Executive 

and my reply....

Thanks for your reply

You dont refer to my letter so I can only assume that your reply is a mass sendout-possibly due to the inundation you received as a result of your actions.

I dont consider tthe teacher's action was extreme or offensive. I also note that a teacher has been struck off, the Teaching Council citing similar serious misconduct-in this case the grooming and sexual abuse of a 16 year old. I agree. this is serious. To compare this to the teacher who failed to agree with a 'transgender boy/girl's' pronouns and name is mind numbing.

As I said in my letter, while it may be not overly respectful for the child to have his or her new monica reflected back, I don't think this is serious and offensive, given the context of the renaming/regendering cult-ure that it arises out of. If you are interested in keeping up with the contextual trends of this phenomena, and the reasons why it has risen now, I suggest you read an outstanding book on this topic called the Myth of Gender by Deborah Soh, a sexology professor turned journalist.

You stated that the teacher shared his views:  "it was that he shared them with the student in an extreme and offensive manner" So if I say something someone does not like, then that is extreme and offensive? Take a hyperbolic analagous situation where a student declares themselves the new Messiah. If I, as a teacher challenge that, and further, refuse to address him/her as my Saviour or some other title Im presuming, to follow consistently your reasoning, that I have expressed my views in an "extreme and offensive manner". Any other fancy of the imagination could be considered likewise, agreed?.

When does managing my assumptions and personal beliefs  as stated in the code, become I will not state them?  I was at a farewell for a teacher who cited the Virgin Mary as a helper available for everyone in times of need and to ask her for help. Nothing happenned here in terms of action against him. A breach? And even if he/she does, does that mean that the sledgehammer arrives?

Your interpretation of manaakitanga to suit your argument is flimsy in my opinion. It is possible that not succumbing to the whims of youth who are empowered by eager and zealous government departments, (but I do acknowledge without malice and with good intention)  is the act of ultimate respect and it is also my (informed) 'take' on manaakitanga.

Oh by the way, Im familiar with the code-I was a trained secondary school teacher. It is sad and angering to me that you have just added your nail to the teaching crisis coffin. Who would line up teacher training knowing that this kind of treatment is a possibility? But in another way I'm quite happy, as the demise of the education 'system' has been something I've observed and actively lobbied/acted for it's replacement for over 25 years. So when this system collapses, and you are bewildered and out of a job, I hope you re-read this letter.

Kind regards

Duncan Hill (that/it's)