Twenty years later: slightly better rights

question: Then what’s the real issue concerning Gay teachers?

answer: The real issue here is discrimination. Will Gay teachers be judged as individuals, or by stereotypes? And what about Gay people as bus drivers, candystore clerks, and so forth? In the final analysis, a person who does a good job should not be denied his or her job or vocation because of some irrelevant criteria in his or her private life.

—Gay Rights National Lobby, 1981

This just in: We have won. Okay, everyone sit back down and take off your bandannas, the powers that be have almost made Civil Unions legal in Washington (so long as we don’t use the “m” word). We can now collect unpaid wages if our partner dies and live happily same sex driven lives, unless Referendum 71 kicks in and the rock goes tumbling back down the hill.

However, in light of this recent victory I thought it would be a good time to check into one of the hottest subjects of lgbtqi rights (and gay rights, as my boss pointed out, are basically civil rights) debates: the homosexual educator.

I apologize for the excessive quotations that are to follow: nothing can say it quite as well as legal documents. To begin our journey into the Revised Code of Washington (rcw), we’ll dive into 1972 just after the upheaval of immorality and all that jazz.

While there might have been some free lovin’ going on around San Francisco, in Tacoma sexual freedom could barely be sighted among the whitecaps of repeals and gusty sodomy laws. In November of 1972, James M. Gaylord was dismissed from his teaching position at Wilson High School. Apparently the school administration “became aware of his sexual status” due to information gathered from a student, and the vice principal took it upon themselves to go to Gaylord’s house and discuss his immorality. His was fired a month lather because the Tacoma School Board “had found probable cause for his discharge due to his status as a publicly known homosexual.” His dismissal was based on immorality (rcw 28a.58.100), which was a direct result of his alleged homosexual activity, which was deemed illegal under both rcw 9.79.100 (sodomy) and rcw 9.79.120 (lewdness).

rcw 9.79.100 provides:

Every person who shall carnally know in any manner any animal or bird; or who shall carnally know any male or female person by the anus or with the mouth or tongue; or who shall voluntarily submit to such carnal knowledge; or who shall attempt sexual intercourse with a dead body, shall be guilty of sodomy...

(This law provided some hiccups during the infamous Enumclaw bestiality case of 2005, when a man died from trying to have sex with a horse, and his partner in crime (not the horse – another person) could not be charged, because the sodomy law had been repealed in its entirety, and bestiality was no longer illegal. So, in short, nonconsensual sex between humans and animals = consenting sex between any type of same-bodied people. But don’t worry, this oversight was corrected and horse-fucking is back to being punishable.)

rcw 9.79.120 provides:

Every person who shall lewdly and viciously cohabit with another not the husband or wife of such person, and every person who shall be guilty of open or gross lewdness, or make any open and indecent or obscene exposure of his person, or of the person of another, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

The spokespeople for the school argued that public awareness of a teacher’s homosexuality nullifies their effectiveness as an educator because “[a] teacher’s efficiency is determined by his relationship with his students, their parents, the school administration, and fellow teachers. If Gaylord had not been discharged after he became known as a homosexual, the result would be fear, confusion, suspicion, parental concern, and pressure on the administration by students, parents, and other teachers.”

Through this statement it becomes apparent that the effects of homosexuality have nothing to do with the the educator and everything to do with how the community perceives them after gaining insight into their personal life. The court found that Gaylord was respected as a teacher for over twelve years before he was outed. Yet it was determined that the administration’s knowledge of his sexual orientation would completely fracture his ability to teach any and all of their high school’s students.

Similar cases were being adjudicated all over the country, and in the process of one of these trials, it was stated that “[a]n homosexual is after all a human being, and a citizen of the United States despite the fact that he finds his sex gratification in what most consider to be an unconventional manner. He is as much entitled to the protection and benefits of the laws and due process fair treatment as are others, at least as to public employment in the absence of proof and not mere surmise that he has committed or will commit criminal acts or that his employment efficiency is impaired by his homosexuality.” (McConnell v. Anderson, 1984)

This is when it starts to be a bit more complicated. It is no longer simply okay to fire people for acting on being gay, but we can still face consequences if it is determined that we are invading our place of employment with waves of rampant homosexuality.

As mentioned, when Gaylord was being charged, men and women who chose to have sex with men and women were indeed breaking several Washington State Laws: “These acts – sodomy and lewdness – were crimes during the period of Gaylord’s employment and at the time of his discharge.”

The law that cited sodomy a crime (rcw 9.79.100) was undergoing review while Gaylord was being charged. After the Supreme Court reviewed the case, the ruling of discharge was confirmed, because at the time of Gaylord’s discharge, in the eyes of the law his homosexuality would affect the school at which he taught.

Due to the efforts of many activists, the sodomy laws were amended. Although it is no longer illegal to act upon homosexual urges – the sodomy law was repealed by 1975 and effective in 1976 – the jurisdiction of the Washington State Human Rights Commission was not expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity until 1996 (hb 2661 – 2005–06). This is the law and task force which currently protects lgbtqi teachers from discrimination in our state.

“I quite frankly find it rather galling to have sat through the school board hearing and once again through this trial and hear administrators say that I’m a good teacher, I’ve been a very good teacher, and yet to be without a job, particularly when I see other people who still hold their jobs who haven’t read a book or turned out a new lesson plan or come up with anything creative in years.”

—James M. Gaylord