Teacher told a 5th grader with gay dads that ‘homosexuality is wrong’. Then 3 students stood up. – Upworthy

Incident Report: Discrimination in Educational Setting and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Case Summary

Background

In November 2019, a fifth-grade student at Deerfield Elementary School in Cedar Hills, Utah, was subjected to discriminatory and homophobic remarks from a substitute teacher. The incident occurred during a classroom activity focused on gratitude, highlighting significant challenges and responses relevant to several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Sequence of Events

1. During a pre-Thanksgiving classroom exercise, students were asked to share what they were thankful for.
2. A student, Daniel, stated he was thankful for his impending adoption by his two fathers.
3. The substitute teacher responded negatively, questioning his happiness and stating that “two men living together is a sin” and “wrong.”
4. Three of Daniel’s female classmates intervened, requesting the teacher to stop before leaving the classroom to report the conduct to the principal.
5. The school administration promptly removed the substitute teacher from the premises. The teacher, employed through Kelly Services, was subsequently fired.

Analysis in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The teacher’s actions represent a direct contravention of the principles of SDG 10, which advocates for reducing inequality and eliminating discriminatory practices.
• The verbal attack on a child based on his parents’ sexual orientation underscores the social stigma that perpetuates inequality for LGBTQ+ individuals and families.
• This case emphasizes the critical need to ensure equal opportunity and end discrimination based on sexual orientation and family structure to achieve the targets of SDG 10.

SDG 4: Quality Education

• SDG 4 is committed to ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education within safe learning environments.
• The substitute teacher’s conduct created a hostile and discriminatory environment, fundamentally undermining the objective of providing a safe and inclusive space for learning.
• In contrast, the supportive intervention by Daniel’s classmates and the decisive action taken by the school administration align with the principles of SDG 4, demonstrating a commitment to fostering an inclusive educational culture that protects all students.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• This goal seeks to promote peaceful and inclusive societies and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.
• The school’s immediate response, including the removal and subsequent termination of the teacher, exemplifies an institution taking just and accountable action to protect a child’s rights and uphold principles of inclusivity.
• The solidarity shown by the community further contributes to the broader goal of building a peaceful and inclusive society that rejects discrimination.

Outcomes and Broader Implications

Institutional and Community Response

• The Alpine School District and the staffing agency, Kelly Services, took definitive action, reinforcing institutional accountability in line with SDG 16.
• The local community demonstrated solidarity by decorating the family’s home with messages of support, promoting the societal inclusion central to the SDGs.
• The proactive response from Daniel’s peers serves as a positive model for promoting tolerance and inclusivity from a young age, a key factor in achieving quality education (SDG 4) and reducing inequalities (SDG 10).

Impact and Conclusion

The incident caused significant emotional distress for the student, who was officially adopted by his fathers, Louis van Amstel and Josh Lancaster, a month later. The event serves as a critical case study illustrating the persistence of discrimination, which impedes progress toward a more equitable and inclusive society. While the teacher’s actions highlight a failure to uphold the values of the SDGs, the collective positive response from students, the school, and the community demonstrates a tangible pathway toward achieving the goals of providing quality education, reducing inequalities, and building just and strong institutions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article’s central incident occurs within a school, a primary institution for education. The issue is not about access to education but the quality and safety of the learning environment, which is a core component of SDG 4. The substitute teacher’s homophobic remarks created an unsafe and non-inclusive atmosphere, directly compromising the quality of education for the student involved.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • This goal is central to the article’s theme. The story highlights the discrimination and social exclusion faced by a child and his family based on the parents’ sexual orientation. The teacher’s actions, the subsequent stigma mentioned, and the broader societal challenge for same-sex couples are all issues of inequality that SDG 10 aims to address.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • This goal is relevant as it pertains to ending violence against children and building effective, accountable institutions. The teacher’s verbal attack constitutes a form of psychological abuse against a child. The school district’s response—investigating the incident, removing the teacher, and affirming its commitment to all children—demonstrates an institutional effort to provide justice and ensure a safe environment, which aligns with the principles of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.” The substitute teacher’s homophobic rant directly violated the principle of a safe and inclusive learning environment for Daniel. The school’s action to remove her was an attempt to restore this environment.
2. Under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The teacher’s actions aimed to socially exclude and shame Daniel based on his family structure (“other status”). The support from his classmates and the community, however, represents a counter-effort to promote his inclusion.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.” The teacher’s behavior is a clear example of a discriminatory practice. The school district firing her is an “appropriate action” taken to eliminate such practices.
3. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.2: “End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.” The teacher’s verbal attack on a fifth-grader, causing him fear and emotional hurt (“This situation really hurt him”), can be classified as psychological abuse, a form of violence against a child that this target seeks to end.
   • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The Alpine School District’s stated commitment to “care about all children in our schools” and its swift action to fire the substitute teacher are examples of an institution enforcing non-discriminatory policies.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 10.2/10.3 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • The article explicitly mentions a statistic that can serve as an indicator: “A majority of gay dads report having faced stigma, even in settings that should be supportive.” This points directly to the official indicator 10.3.1/16.b.1: “Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law.” The article provides both a general statistic and a specific anecdotal case of this discrimination.
2. For Target 4.a (Quality Education) and 16.2 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • The article implies indicators related to school safety and violence against children. The incident itself—a student being verbally abused by a teacher due to his family structure—is a qualitative data point. Progress could be measured by the “Proportion of students experiencing bullying, physical fighting, or psychological harassment, by sex and other characteristics.” The actions of the three girls who reported the teacher and the principal who escorted her out imply the existence of, and need for, effective reporting and response mechanisms within schools, which can also be measured.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: upworthy.com