OPINION: Cleveland Catholic Dioceses implicates students and freedom of speech

The Catholic Diocese of Cleveland recently released a statement clarifying its stance on LBGTQ+ affairs in Catholic schools under the jurisdiction of the diocese. The statement also outlines new policies regarding the gender expression of students, the use of preferred pronouns in the classroom and on records, students receiving gender-affirming care and supporting queer individuals. 

After attending Catholic schools for over 10 years of my life, I am disappointed by the nature of these new policies, but I am not surprised. 

This three-page document hashes out new, alarming policies that Catholic schools must abide by if they are under the jurisdiction of the diocese. Of the many concerning talking points the policy enacted, I have to say that the Parental Notification clause is one of the most chilling. This new rule states: 

“In the case of a person who is a minor, if and when a member of the staff or faculty of an institution becomes aware that such minor is experiencing gender dysphoria or gender confusion, the institution shall, with reasonable promptness, notify such minor's parents or guardian of that fact.”

This, in simple terms, dictates that school faculty are required to out their students to their parents as experiencing what the diocese refers to as “gender confusion,” unless there is “reasonable concern” that outing the student will bring them serious physical harm. The policy also explains that “gender confusion” consists of a student exhibiting behavior that does not align with an individual’s sex at birth. 

The policy also reads, “The initial presumption, however, should be that such a disclosure should be made absent a compelling reason not to.” This means that, unless physical abuse is already evident, the student will be outed to their parents without  consent. 

Behaviors that may prompt the student to be outed to their parents include dressing in a way that is not consistent with their sex and disclosing their gender identity. The policy states: 

”...every person is expected to refrain from acting in a manner the purpose of which is to hold themselves out as being a sex or gender that is inconsistent with the person's God-given biological sex or which, regardless of intent, has the effect of causing confusion or scandal regarding the person's sex or gender relative to the person's God-given biological sex.” 

Additionally, this policy has banned any sort of support or encouragement for LGBTQ+ students in schools, as the new policy prohibits advocating for behaviors that contradict the Catholic Church’s teachings on human sexuality and gender. So, this policy has banned pride memorabilia and speech that advocates for the rights of queer students, faculty, staff, or loved ones. 

The policy also prohibits students from receiving gender-affirming care. The policy bans people from "social transitions, surgeries, or medical surgeries" that would "feminize" men or "masculinize" women. 

To say that I am appalled by this policy is an understatement. 

These policies are incredibly harmful to the mental health of queer students. The Trevor Project, an organization supporting LGBTQ+ youth, states that students who found their school to be LGBTQ-affirming reported lower rates of attemptted suicide. Nearly half of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered suicide this year as well. 

It’s clear that when queer students feel supported and accepted, they are less likely to face mental health struggles. When school policies directly target and suppress the expression and existence of queer students, those students are more likely to commit suicide. The harm of these policies is evident; when schools discriminate against students, they are more likely to face mental health struggles, which can impact their academic performance, physical health and mental wellbeing.. 

Schools are supposed to be a place where students feel supported to grow and learn to become productive members of society. When schools in the diocese of Cleveland implement and enforce these policies, they are prohibiting queer students from reaching the full educational potential that they are entitled to as students and human beings. 

These policies are not just incredibly harmful to the socioemotional well-being of queer students; these policies are a form of censorship on student perspectives at Catholic high schools. 

Schools are supposed to be an outlet for students to learn, discuss and debate with one another. When schools suppress certain viewpoints that do not align with their ideologies, they suppress student expression and speech. 

Supreme Court precedent indicates that students do not lose their rights to freedom of speech and expression when they step foot on school property, per the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines. 

Tinker v. Des Moines is a landmark Supreme Court case that set the precedent that students may peacefully and respectfully express their opinions on school grounds if 1.) the speech/expression does not cause disciplinary issues and 2.) does not interfere with the rights of other students to engage in the educational process. Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckerht wore armbands to school protesting U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. 

The students faced disciplinary actions following their conduct, which prompted a lawsuit filed by the Tinker family that went as far as the Supreme Court, where they ruled in favor of the students. The SCOTUS set the precedent that speech or expression in question must materially and substantially interfere with school operations for it to be unprotected.

In simple terms, this case set an important precedent stating that students don’t lose their First Amendment rights when they step foot on school property. This case begs the question of whether or not students at private schools have the same rights as those who attend public schools. 

Unfortunately, students at private high schools do not have the same First Amendment rights as those at public schools, so schools have the right to create discriminatory policies, which is the case in the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland. 

Schools like St. Joseph Academy, St. Edward and Magnificat, which all operate independently under religious orders, have expressed their opposition to the policy in letters sent home to their students and families. KC McKenna, the president of St. Edward High School, released a statement to students and families, saying, “We will always operate in the best interest of our students and do not plan to make any changes to the pastoral ways in which we support LGBTQ+ students at St. Edward High School because of this policy.” 

The Mayor of the City of Cleveland, Justin Bibb, released a statement in response to the new policy as well. “As a Christian, the diocese’s policy is a shocking betrayal of the Church teachings that have shaped who I am today…For me, faith is about universal love and acceptance.” 

Bibb extended his heartfelt solidarity to students and families impacted by the new policy in his statement as well. “Rest assured that this policy, along with any expressions of hatred, doesn’t go unnoticed.” He said in his statement.

Although these schools are not public, as they are under the discretion of the Diocese of Cleveland, they still receive significant state funding, with a significant amount of funding coming in through tuition vouchers. Tuition vouchers are scholarships given to certain families at or below a certain wealth threshold to send their children to private schools. 

The state of Ohio allocated $150 million dollars to tuition vouchers; $143 million went to families seeking a Christian education. The other 4% of the funds went to Jewish, Muslim or non-religious institutions. 

The use of vouchers has come into recent controversy, as public schools receive significantly fewer funds per student than those at Catholic schools. The Ed-Choice voucher program allocates $8,047 per high school student attending a private school. In stark contrast, the state's largest urban school district, Columbus City Schools, only receives $4,390 per student.

Personally, this does not sit right with me. It raises questions of whether or not taxpayer money should be used to fund schools that actively discriminate against students who do not align with their ideologies. If the recent Senate Bill 83 can impose ideological constraints on educational institutions receiving state funding, should private schools receiving state funding be able to actively discriminate against students and violate their First Amendment rights? 

The harms of this policy cannot be overstated. The negative impacts of this policy on student well-being are troublesome. The suppression of student rights to expression at these institutions should be considered if such significant funding is allocated to these institutions in lieu of supporting public schools which cannot censor their students. 

Just as Supreme Court Judge Abe Fortas said, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”, students should not lose their Constitutional rights when they face the altar at a Catholic Church.