My six-year-old son has a peanut allergy, which can make life a little interesting at times. We have to take his EpiPen everywhere, as the slightest trace of nuts could cause a life-threatening allergic reaction.
My wife and I scour the ingredients of new foods intently, looking for “may contain nuts” warnings. Whenever we drop our son off somewhere new, we have to explain his allergy to whoever is supervising him.
And that includes his teachers. Since he was four and starting pre-school, we’ve had to fill out a lot of paperwork about his allergy. But now it feels like more of a formality because he attends a peanut-free school.
I’m grateful for that because my son and others like him with a severe food allergy are more at risk of harm by exposure to an allergen than kids without a severe food allergy. I am glad the school has a specific policy on nuts, and not just a general allergen policy. It’s also educational for other students as it helps them understand why activities like trading lunches are forbidden.
So when the St. Albert Public School District announced it was drafting a policy specifically addressing the bullying of students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered (LGBT), I thought it was a terrific idea, although some felt it unnecessary.
It’s bizarre when the information available proves consistently and uncategorically that LGBT students are more likely to be bullied than heterosexual students. They are more likely than their heterosexual peers to have lower grades, more absences, be diagnosed with depression and contemplate and even attempt suicide. A quick scan of available literature shows this isn’t a simple suggestion – repeated studies have repeatedly generated identical results. One example is the Eagle Canada study released in May, 2011.
So if we know certain people are more at risk, why wouldn’t we take steps to protect them? If we know prevailing attitudes at the school are a part of that risk, why wouldn’t we try to change them by offering more information?
One argument against such a policy was the increased attention on sexual minorities that also increased bullying risk. That’s like saying if we ignore a problem, it will just go away. It’s like saying if we teach our kids about sex, they’ll have lots of it, or if we teach them about drugs, they will become junkies. This is what educators call a teachable moment – if we shine the light on the problem and the people involved, we stand a chance at eliminating the problem at its very core.
Of course a school should be a safe environment for every student and bullying of anyone should be discouraged. But when the evidence at hand so clearly proves one group could be at risk, that group needs some extra protection. I hope other local school districts will also follow suit so that protection is universal.
Peter Boer is a reporter at the St. Albert Gazette.
