Thread by @KirstiMiller30

Should not be entitled to a cent. Non believers should not be taxed to pay for the promotion of others beliefs.

The controversy over Citipointe Christian College’s new contract of enrolment is causing probably the heaviest controversy in Australia over LGBTI issues since October 2018 (when the Ruddock religious discrimination report was partially leaked), and for good reason.

We don’t merely have a public figure saying something offensive; we have an explicit commitment by a powerful institution to mistreat vulnerable people within it. The backlash is not an example of a violation of religious freedom.

As they seek to defend the school, religious conservatives have argued that the school has the right to teach and express its beliefs, and that its critics are seeking to deny this right.

What religious conservatives need to understand is that the school has not merely expressed its beliefs in its enrolment contract. It has gone far further. Clauses 27 and 122d(iii) are especially illustrative of this fact.

Clause 27 reads: “To this end, the Parents acknowledge and accept that, in seeking a Christian education for the Student, they will support Citipointe Christian College in its teachings and in its expectation that the Student will grow in faith in Christ Jesus,

and that, should the Parents and/or Student no longer support those precepts, or reject those precepts by actions or words, this will afford the College the right to terminate this contract, in accordance with Clause 122.”

Clause 122d(iii) reads: “The College may terminate this Agreement: where subclauses (a), (b) or (c) do not apply, by notice in writing to the Parents with immediate effect where the Parents are in breach of this Agreement and fail to remedy the breach within a reasonable time

after notice from the College requiring the Parents to do so.
Where subclauses (a), (b) or (c) do not otherwise apply, the right to terminate under this subclass includes where theParents (including any one parent pursuant to Clause 115(g)) or the Student engages in conduct that:

is inconsistent or incompatible with the mission or beliefs or values, including as outlined in the Declaration of Faith and the College Christian Ethos Requirements”.

These clauses are critical to understanding why the addition of the declaration of faith is so problematic. They allow for expulsions of students because they, or their parents, disagreed with or acted against the Declaration of Faith.

Yet that’s not all: because they make no distinction between student violations of the declaration of faith while at school, & such violations while away from school, their effect is that the school can, under the contract, expel a student for speech or actions that

contradict the declaration of faith, even if it’s done on the weekend.

The school is claiming a right to control every aspect of their students’ lives — including their private lives — until they graduate.

This is why the response by religious conservatives that “the school has always believed this, and the students and the parents always knew it” doesn’t hold water.

Until now, a parent may have enrolled their child in the school, knowing of the school’s belief, and disagreeing with it, but without that disagreement being a problem.

They may have chosen the school for other reasons. But now, out of the blue, the school is saying that if you or your child disagree with their beliefs, you or your child will be expelled, even if you or they are already enrolled.

Yes, parents and students knew the school’s beliefs already. No, they did not already know they would be expelled for disagreeing with them.

Until the enrolment contract was amended in this way, an LGBTI student at the school could go to school, obey the conservative rules at the school, and then go home and be themselves (parents permitting).

That’s still not a great situation — obviously — but at least there’s some escape. But under this new contract, that student has to obey the rules of the school even when they go home.

They would not be permitted to have a relationship or express their actual opinions — even outside school time — until they graduate.

They would be forced to live a lie until then. But even then, this wouldn’t guarantee that they could stay at the school. If someone hostile to them found out that they were living a lie, they could dob them into the school and the student could be expelled anyway.

At this point, one might ask “if the school is so homophobic, wouldn’t it be good for that student to leave?”. Maybe. But not necessarily.

First of all, if their parents are highly conservative, them getting kicked out of the school might anger the parents, who might take out their anger on their child.

Secondly, despite the school’s conservative beliefs, the student might want to stay (as long as they can be themselves away from school). They might have friends. They might have clandestinely supportive staff members.

They might not want to have to start all over again at a new school, meeting a whole new group of people who already know each other. (I agree, however, that it would certainly be good for that student to not be enrolled in the first place.)

One might also ask if the problem could be solved by limiting the contract to new students, but not applying it to existing students. That would improve it but not solve the problem completely. Ultimately, parents enrol students in schools. Students don’t enrol themselves.

So there will still be LGBTI students enrolled against their will who, because of this contract, will have to live a lie in both their school and private lives. No school has a right to force that on a child.

So what’s the solution? Withdrawing public funding from the school isn’t enough. This would do nothing to address the issue of a student forced to live a lie against their will (assuming the school could still operate).

The only thing that will work in this case is a legislated prohibition on schools having this much control over their students' lives.

Anti-discrimination statutes should be amended to reflect the difference because at-school and out-of-school conduct, and set a higher bar for school prohibitions on the latter to be justified than the former.

Obviously schools can’t have *all* their power to regulate out-of-school student behaviour removed — for example, they still need to be able to take action against out-of-school bullying.

But there’s far less scope for such regulation being legitimate than regulation of at-school conduct.