TRENTON, NJ – (OP-ED) – The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) stands as a beacon of protection and inclusion for LGBTQ+ students across the state. It offers much-needed defenses against harassment and unequal treatment, and it’s a law that should be celebrated for the dignity it affords individuals in their journey of self-discovery and expression.
However, recent actions by Governor Phil Murphy regarding a decision to not inform parents about their children’s gender choices in public schools strike a disconcerting chord. While respecting and fostering the rights and privacy of LGBTQ+ students is undoubtedly vital, this particular decision may inadvertently sideline the role of parents in their children’s lives, particularly at a formative and often sensitive stage.
The Importance of Family Support
When it comes to complex and personal matters such as gender identity, the support and understanding of a family can be indispensable. While it is true that not all families may react with support or empathy, it is equally true that many families would be willing allies if given the opportunity. By denying parents knowledge of their child’s gender choices, we may be isolating children from a potential support system.
The Rights of Parents
Parents generally have the legal right to be involved in and make decisions about their children’s education and well-being. This includes knowledge about significant aspects of their child’s life that might affect their mental or physical health.
The exclusion of parents from such important decisions could be seen as a violation of parental rights and can potentially create a wedge between parents and children. If a child is struggling with their gender identity, parents who are kept in the dark may misinterpret their child’s behavior, leading to further misunderstanding and strife within the family.
School’s Role as Mediator
It is crucial to recognize that not every family will respond with support and understanding. In such cases, schools and educators should play a vital mediating role, providing the necessary protections and supportive environments that the LAD enshrines.
There should be a balanced approach that respects both the child’s privacy and the parent’s right to information. Sensitivity and caution should be exercised, perhaps involving counseling or professional guidance when communicating these matters to parents.
Conclusion
Governor Murphy’s decision, while well-intentioned in its effort to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ students, may have overlooked the complex dynamics of family relationships and the rights of parents.
A more nuanced approach, one that considers the potential benefits of family support alongside the needs and privacy of the child, should be the way forward. This would still align with the spirit of the LAD and the broader movement for LGBTQ+ rights, while also recognizing the essential role that families play in our lives.
After all, in our quest for a more tolerant and accepting society, we should not unintentionally create new divisions or overlook the value of open communication and trust within the family.