The Paradox of School Board Policies

The Paradox and Danger of School Board Policies

Promoting Explicit Literature While Condemning Teacher Misconduct

In recent times, a perplexing trend has emerged within educational institutions – a paradoxical scenario where school board members advocate for the inclusion of literature containing sexually explicit material in school libraries while simultaneously reprimanding teachers for misconduct related to the exposure of similar content to students. This dissonance places educators in a precarious position, caught between contradictory directives and potentially harmful outcomes for both teachers and students.

Chilliwack Trustee Willow Reichelt about books containing sexually explicit material:

Teacher Misconduct Case regarding inappropriate image accidentally observed by student:,%20Thomas%20James.pdf


The Promotion of Explicit Literature by School Boards

Across various Districts, school board members have increasingly supported the inclusion of literature in school libraries that contains sexually explicit material. Arguments in favor of such inclusion often revolve around the promotion of diversity, inclusion, sex health education and prevention of sexual abuse.  

However, policies in place and major child abuse prevention organizations clearly state that exposing young minds to graphic content can lead to desensitization, confusion, moral dilution, grooming and sexual abuse. Moreover, concerns about age-appropriateness and parental consent have been raised, questioning the prudence of providing unrestricted access to such materials within educational environments.

Teacher Misconduct and the Double Standard

Instances of teacher misconduct, where educators have inappropriately shared or displayed sexually suggestive content to their students, have resulted in disciplinary actions ranging from reprimands to termination of employment.


Cases Example:,%20Gerald%20Douglas.pdf,%20Thomas%20James.pdf,%20Chung%20Yuk-CRA.pdf,%20Justin%20Robert-CRA.pdf,%20John%20Willem%20Van%20Bommel.pdf


This dissonance highlights a glaring double standard, placing educators in a precarious position where they are simultaneously encouraged to promote certain materials while facing severe consequences for following suit.


Navigating the Contradiction

Educators must tread cautiously, ensuring that their instructional materials and methods align with pedagogical objectives, regulatory frameworks, codes of conduct, and the law. They bear a critical role in preventing sexual misconduct and ensuring the safety and well-being of their students. Teachers have a duty to report any instances of inappropriate behavior or suspected abuse, as mandated by law and professional ethics.

Furthermore, School Boards must recognize that they are not above the law. While school boards may set policies, these policies must adhere to legal standards and guidelines aimed at safeguarding children's rights and protecting them from harm. Upholding legal responsibilities should take precedence over conflicting directives or institutional pressures.

Efforts to promote diverse literature while maintaining ethical standards must prioritize the welfare and developmental needs of students. The juxtaposition of school board endorsements for explicit literature with stringent repercussions for teacher misconduct underscores a significant paradox within educational governance. The inherent ambiguity surrounding acceptable boundaries regarding the discussion and presentation of sensitive topics necessitates a delicate balance between adhering to institutional directives, exercising professional judgment, and prioritizing children's safety within the framework of the law.


Woke Teacher 

The Myth of Teacher Autonomy

The belief/myth that under the concept of 'teacher autonomy,' educators can introduce ideology or expose children to sexually explicit material is a dangerous misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the term. 'Teacher autonomy' refers to the professional discretion and independence teachers have within the framework of the curriculum and educational standards. It does not grant educators the authority to push ideology, introduce inappropriate material, and expose students to sexually explicit content.


Safe Place for Who?

Preventing predatory behavior, particularly grooming, requires vigilance in maintaining appropriate boundaries between educators and students. Predators' adept at grooming often seek to erode a child's boundaries while positioning themselves as trusted authority figures. Laws, policies, and codes of conduct underscore the necessity of upholding these boundaries within educational settings.

Establishing and enforcing clear rules regarding physical contact, communication channels, and appropriate behaviors are essential safeguards against predators gaining access to children and forming inappropriate relationships with them.

Conversations or actions by adults that involve discussing sexual fetishes or exposing students to symbols representing sexual behaviors or identities are not only highly inappropriate but can also be deeply traumatizing for students. Such behavior serves as a tactic to test the limits of students' comfort with sexual topics, constituting a clear red flag for potential grooming behaviors. Any instance of this nature should be promptly reported to the appropriate authorities for immediate intervention and investigation.



The Freedom of Speech Argument

Around children, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are limited by law. The argument for freedom of expression to permit someone to walk around children with their genitals exposed, or for teachers to expose children to sexual fetishes, is deceptive and used by perverse individuals who refuse to enforce the law as it is.

Educators with identity issues should not be a burden for students. Students should not be expected to bear the emotional weight of someone else's identity struggles. Educators need to take responsibility for their mental health and seek appropriate resources and assistance to address their identity issues in a way that does not negatively impact the students in their lives.