Principle Modeste bans Modesty
Matt Gurney: Catholic school suspends student for promoting modesty
Matt Gurney Mar 2, 2012 – 12:56 PM ET
Last month, on Valentine’s Day, student Paul Gomille circulated 136 copies of a speech that he had written. He passed them out in the cafeteria of his Toronto-area Catholic high school. The speech was on the topic of a woman’s inner beauty — Mr. Gomille, 17, clearly believes that many of his female peers do not treat each other, or themselves, with due respect, and he wishes that everyone would focus more on how wonderful they are on the inside and not how attractive they can make themselves on the outside.
For circulating this speech, a link to which can be found below, Mr. Gomille was suspended for two days. The reason for the suspension? “Opposition to authority.” Apparently stating the obvious about teenagers now counts as an act of rebellion.
The decision to suspend Mr. Gomille goes back to his original hope to deliver his thoughts in a public address. Mr. Gomille reportedly approached the principal with his idea and asked for permission to address the school. This was initially met favourably, especially since the school received much public attention earlier this (academic) year when administrators noted that many of the female student body (no pun intended) were hiking their kilt skirts too high, yet another statement of the blindingly obvious. Principal Donna Modeste, according to Mr. Gomille, welcomed the positive nature of Mr. Gomille’s message.
But not all of it, in the end. Principal Modeste objected to a particular section of Mr. Gomillle’s letter, which she felt was “judgmental”:
The people this message concerns are the young women of this school, and of the world. In particular, it concerns the silent ones, the intelligent ones, the ones that don’t talk about people behind their backs, the ones that guys don’t flock to in droves, the ones that don’t dress in revealing clothing, the ones who would love to be in love, and the ones that are continually disappointed in their appearance because the only thing they have to compare themselves to are the women that have been put on pedestals by our society. This message also concerns those of you who may consider yourselves the so called “opposite” to the demographic I just described. The ones who do dress in revealing clothing, and the ones who try to fit in with the crowd.
Principal Modeste requested changes to this section of the speech. Rather than comply, Mr. Gomille chose instead of distribute his speech, in its original form, by handing out copies of the text in the cafeteria. That’s when he was suspended for opposition to authority.
There’s a few weird parts about this. The principal certainly has the right to deny any student the right to make a public address during school hours. But does that same right extend to blocking a student from distributing a leaflet, that he printed up himself, during his lunch hour? Does the school board intend to take the position that it has veto rights over any form of written communication its students may wish to distribute, during their own time and at their own expense, on school property? Would such extend to include Christmas cards or birthday invitations?
If so, that would be a bizarre, and remarkably futile, step to take. Perhaps the most surprising thing about this incident is that the offending material was distributed in hardcopy, rather than just zapped around electronically, beyond the school’s control. Reactions like this will only accelerate the move of intra-student communication into forums where the school has no jurisdiction.
Then there’s the issue of the content of the piece. This isn’t precisely a free-speech issue, since it is reasonable for schools to have broader powers over the behaviour of its not-yet-adult students than it is for the state to have over its adult citizens. Schools are not simply society in miniature. But even having granted that, what about the offending text is in fact offensive? Mr. Gomille has his opinions, but they aren’t insulting, racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic or even indelicately expressed. Not specific students are named, no one is harassed or bullied. Even in our Zero Tolerance era, what did Mr. Gomille write that was intolerant? Indeed, his message, slightly tweaked, could be slotted directly into a Go Girls! self-esteem brochure without seeming out of place.
The fact that it is “judgmental” simply isn’t good enough. Mr. Gomille is entitled to his judgments, and to express them politely. Principal Modeste should have given further thought to her decision to object on the grounds that Mr. Gomille’s commentary reflects his judgments, given that the entire Catholic school system is a faith-based institution that posits that people who make the wrong value judgments face eternal damnation. The idea that a Catholic school in particular would object to a value judgment, and Mr. Gomille’s specific judgment, is bizarre. He’s calling for women to have more self-respect and to not act immodestly. From the Catholic perspective, he’s clearly on-message.
Then, finally, there is the fact that Mr. Gomille did not necessarily defy the principal’s authority. Recall that he originally wanted to make a public address. When Principal Modeste raised concerns with some of the content, Mr. Gomille pursued another option for distributing his message. Unless Principal Modeste had explicitly ordered him to share his opinions with no one in any format (itself an indefensible position, but just for argument’s sake), no authority was defied, and it falls upon her to justify her objections to the distribution of the piece based on its content, not its manner of circulation.