Chapter 7

Monday evening arrived and Kevin and Denise went to the school for the governors’ meeting. School officials expected a large group attending and set the meeting up in the auditorium. The auditorium was packed, almost completely filled with parents; close to three-quarters of the parents had shown up.

The head teacher, Mr Hanford, opened the meeting.

“Good evening, parents, thank you for coming. I’m not surprised at the large turnout and we would have had a larger turnout except for the people who had to work this evening; my office had rather a few calls during the past week asking if the meeting could be held during the day instead. Unfortunately we could not do that. As a result, we’ve received many letters from parents who were unable to attend, expressing their view on their children’s participation in the program I’ll be discussing here.

“As we wrote in our letter to you last week, the Department for Education has informed us that our school is subject to the Human Sexuality Promotion Act, a law passed by both Houses of Parliament several years ago, since our school receives government subsidies directly in the form of bursaries based on pupil enrollment to offset the full cost of our school fees. As the law mandates, both the Lambeth Borough Council and the London Common Council have required Program participation in state-funded schools they administer, but as an independent school, we’ve been exempt until this recent ruling. The act that established the Program is silent about what amount of government financial support triggers a school being considered to be a state-funded one, but less than 10 percent of our funding is from state sources.

“Our governors have made their preliminary decision; the borough and city councils, whose representatives are with us this evening, have both indicated that if our governors decline to adopt the Program curriculum, our bursary support could be ended and many of our families will no longer be able to send their children here. So we are being placed in a sticky situation and have made a difficult decision. Before we get to that, let me turn the podium over to our chair of governors, Dr Byron Abberle.”

That official came to the podium and began to discuss the deliberations of the governors, and because of the threat of losing the subsidy, the governors found themselves virtually forced into agreeing to have the Program begin at the school. As soon as he said that, there was a huge outcry from the audience with people clamoring to be heard. It took several minutes for Abberle to restore order.

“Please, we’ve made provision for parents to speak here soon,” he finally made himself heard as order began to be restored. “But since we really can’t expect to have you all spend the entire night here, your governors would greatly appreciate your keeping comments constructive and brief. Before we open public comment, the governors would like to determine your level of support—probably opposition would be the better term—for the Program. We think we’ve identified four fundamental reasons for approval or opposition to public nudity for our pupils. These can be generally categorized into social, moral, cultural, and religious reasons. But I suppose that those four can be loosely grouped into two major areas: religious and moral; and cultural and social. Now, by a showing of hands, how many of you are opposed to the Program for religious and moral reasons?”

After a quick estimate and consulting with the others on the stage, he announced, “We reckon the count shows that about two-thirds of the parents are opposed. Now let’s bring up the other reason, social and cultural, and please, if you indicated your opposition in our first count, don’t raise your hand now.”

He looked over the audience. “I reckon this amounts to perhaps a quarter, almost a third, of the group. Our counting this way is only an approximation, but it tells us that some 90 to 95 percent of you parents oppose the Program. Now we have another question. An essential key to the success of the Program’s achieving its stated goals is if the pupils’ parents encourage and support their child and ensure that they participate fully. When the Program begins, how many of you will support both your child and our school to help them satisfactorily complete their participation? Show of hands, please.”

A few hands were tentatively raised but were quickly snatched down when it became apparent that virtually no one else seemed to support this issue.

Then a voice rang out: “How many parents will be aagin’ their kids’ gettin’ involved?”

Virtually every hand in the audience was raised and chants of “Hear, hear!” rang out.

Abberle looked out at all of the waving hands and shrugged. He turned to the group seated to his right. “My colleagues from the London Common Council and the Lambeth Council, please take note of these responses from our parents.

“Now the comments we received by mail predominantly stated parents’ opposition based on religious practice and most cited Islamic law but a fair number mentioned Christian doctrine as well. In all cases, the reasons cited were based on modesty, and writers pointed out that children of most cultures are taught to be modest in behavior as well as dress. There was one single comment that was a common element in all the letters we received and that was cultural acceptance. Virtually all of the letters brought up that issue; they pointed out that one of the principles of our British society is the acceptance of all citizens regardless of cultural or religious background. Many letters stated that a major stated educational goal of our society is to instill in our young adults a healthy attitude toward people of all cultures. In other words, we strive to teach our children to respect people of all religions and cultures. Forcing public nudity on children whose upbringing taught them otherwise is destructive to cultural, religious, and family values. That’s what we gleaned from reviewing parents’ letters.

“Now let me introduce Dr Myron Hubert, the National Program representative for the London Common Council, who wanted to address precisely that topic, modesty and multiculturalism, because this is a common criticism of the Program. Dr. Hubert?”

He came to the podium. “Thank you, Dr Abberle and Head Teacher Hanford. Indeed, it is the very idea of modesty in children, especially excessive modesty amongst them and amongst certain cultural groups, which gave rise to the development of the Naked in School Program. Too many of our youth grow into adulthood with their experiences of healthy interactions between cultures, religions, and genders severely impaired by the insularism their cultures impose on them. This gives rise to misunderstanding, discrimination, and persecution of people not a member of one’s group, and in the case of genders, to sexual assault and violence.

“The Program was specifically intended to remove the mystery of what human sexuality entails in all of its manifestations and to banish the modesty which various conservative cultures impose on their children. The Program is specifically designed so that those who participate in it will be trained to lose their modesty and will thus be better able to function in our modern society, especially for members of those cultural groups who maintain insular barriers which isolate them from the general population. It is the indoctrination of modesty in children which the Program is expressly designed to dispel. This is the position of London’s Education Authority, which I represent.”

His comments produced a swelling of booing and hooting. When the audience quieted, Hubert continued.

“As government representatives on the Education Authority, we respect the customs of all cultures and religions, but the practice of religion is a private matter. When religious customs clash with the goals of society as practiced in public, then the rules and regulations of the public take precedence. An example is the custom of multiple marriage which is permitted in certain cultures and religions but is not allowed in the United Kingdom. This is a matter of public policy.

“The purpose of the Program is defined in the Human Sexuality Promotion Act and is printed in the booklets which are provided to all pupils and their parents. Let me read the purpose as it’s stated in the Program booklet and is addressed to the pupil participant. I quote: ‘The Program has been carefully designed to help you become more comfortable with your body and your sexuality, to treat others in natural balance as both individual people and sexual beings, to learn to harness your natural energies, and to behave in a more mature and morally conscious manner. By becoming more comfortable with your body and sexuality, it is hoped that your sexual tensions will be in general diminished but more focused when appropriate. This is your opportunity for rapid personal growth.’

“That is what the Program is all about. The Program is actually a component of the state secondary-school curriculum, and just as members of all religions and sects are expected to follow the government-approved curriculum, it’s expected that this curriculum module will be followed as well. Thank you for your attention.”

He returned to his seat as many audience members rose and clamored for attention. Abberle returned to the podium and called for quiet. Then he addressed the gathering again.

“Now we’ll take public comment, but please, if your only comment is to state your opposition to the Program or to repeat something that a prior speaker has said, we ask that you restrain yourself. The fact of your opposition is abundantly clear; we are looking for constructive suggestions to assist our governors in deciding their best course of action. There are microphones set up in the aisles for you to use and we sincerely request that you be orderly. We also beg you to be considerate of those waiting to speak and be brief.”

A line of people formed at each microphone and most comments basically covered religious modesty practices; people claimed that just as the government had no right to dictate a Muslim’s diet, they had no right to dictate his or her dress—and this fact was recognized in school dress codes permitting Islamic garb. Examples illustrating this argument were quickly exhausted, inducing many potential speakers, waiting in the lines for their turn, to return to their seats. Then, as a lull developed in parents rising to comment, one of the governors came up to the podium.

“Excuse me,” she said, “I’d like to interject a comment here now that there’s somewhat of a lull while people are returning to their seats. I’m Marsha Luddington, a parent governor, and would like to invite Mr Kevin Coris to address us. Mr Coris contacted me last week and told me that he can speak to some issues which I’m certain no one has considered to this point. In fact, it appears that he is, for want of a better term, somewhat of an ‘expert’ in the Program.”

A hush fell over the room. Kevin stood and walked to the nearest aisle microphone but Luddington motioned for him to come to the podium. He climbed the steps and went to each person on the stage to greet them personally. Most looked at him quizzically but he simply smiled at them and told them that he was honored to meet them and to be asked to speak. Then he went to the podium.

“I’m truly honored to be asked to speak here and I thank Mrs Luddington for the opportunity. I’m afraid to have to dispel her characterization about my being an ‘expert’ on the Program; I’m actually a Yank and doing a year’s study here in London at one of your excellent universities. But I’ve had extensive experience with the Program in high schools in the States and have first-hand knowledge of all of its problems and shortcomings. I’m guessing that except for my fiancée, I’m the only person in this room who has actually been a Program participant. Am I correct?”

There was a rush of whispers which washed over the room and it grew totally quiet again.

“I guess I am, then,” he went on. “So I suppose for this room, I’m the best ‘expert’ available, right?” Laughter. “I contacted Mrs Luddington last week and told her that while I was aware that the governors would be compelled to accede to government pressure because of their threatened financial extortion, there were measures which the school and indeed, parents, could take if they couldn’t delay the start of the Program until a legal challenge could be mounted to exempt the school. Now I’m going to go into some controversial matters and would appreciate not being asked to stop speaking until I’m finished. Everything I will mention will be completely legal and will actually follow the school’s policies as I’ve learned from reading its charter and bylaws. If any of our distinguished panel has a question or rebuttal, please make a note of it and we’ll address those comments when I’m done. Mr Hanford, Dr Abberle, can I have your assurance of no interruptions? And even better, could the governors adopt a motion to allow me to speak as part of the record?”

Abberle looked amazed and opened his mouth for a retort but Luddington spoke quickly, “I so move!”

“Seconded,” another governor called.

Abberle closed his mouth. “Hmm, most irregular ... young man, I...” he began.

“Sir, either call for discussion or ask if they are ready for the question,” Kevin prompted quietly.

He looked at Kevin and shook his head. “Indeed? Most extraordinary...” he muttered. Aloud, he said, “Right then. Any discussion?” he called. “No one? Do you need the question to be put again? No? Those in favor say aye.”

“Aye.”

“Opposed, the same? None opposed; the motion is adopted. Mr Coris, proceed, please.”

“Thank you, governors,” Kevin said. “First, I understand that you really can’t delay in beginning the Program while you look for grounds to challenge the government, so to minimize student terror and psychological pain, try calling for volunteers first. Don’t co-opt unwilling children. I’m sure in a performing arts school, there’d be some students who might have exhibitionistic traits.”

That comment resulted in some reluctant titters from the audience.

“Next is the use of force for disrobing students. I asked my London attorney—ah, it’s solicitor in England—to review the Program law and he told me that nowhere does it allow—or even suggest—that it’s permissible to use force to remove a child’s clothes. He told me that the use of force to strip anyone, particularly a child, is a felony. So this recommendation is for you parents: encourage your children that if they are selected, that they don’t comply. Tell them that you support their refusal to participate, as you told us earlier when you said, by show of hands, that you’d actively oppose the Program and would support your children in their refusing to participate.”

“I say there...” Hubert began.

“Sir, please, no interruptions?” Kevin interjected. “The Program rules also speak about using human subjects for classroom demonstrations. I’ve seen how this becomes a terrible abuse of the teachers’ power and is an enormous humiliation for the student. There is absolutely no educational purpose that can’t be better achieved by using training aids. Tell your child not to participate in demonstrations either.

“The only threat that the school has in forcing participation seems to be if the school refuses to submit their coursework or exams or both to the Ofqual exam board—this may be the wrong way of saying it, but I’m just a Yank and not familiar with you complex system. If a student has already taken the year eleven GCSEs and received their scores, there’s not much that can be done to him at that point, since you folks don’t have a formal quantitative graduation requirement the way that the U.S. system does.

“You should know that the law simply states that pupil participation in the Program is required, but the law is silent about what happens if participation is refused. Obviously the law’s authors assumed that if the children were asked to strip, they’d willingly comply. But what happens if they don’t? Threaten pupils by claiming that the school will not certify their secondary school completion? I don’t know enough to even guess how a school could punish non-compliance. The law doesn’t mention withholding grade reports and records of class completions. I’ve learned that a number of you parents are in legal professions and you should be able to find out how you can get grades released if that becomes an issue.

“I’ve looked into post-secondary school options too and found that your children can leave school at the age of 16 after taking their GCSEs and then do an apprenticeship or traineeship, if they choose that route. They can also work part time and take classes part time at age 16. This means that if pupils complete school early, before year eleven, refusal to participate in the Program would trigger no penalties, would it?

“And what about those who refuse and want to go to university? What happens if somehow a student’s coursework isn’t certified by the school or the Education Ministry? I’ve looked into what might happen in those cases. I’ve checked with a number of major universities in the U.K. and in other western European countries where British children typically attend college, and the admissions offices I contacted all agreed that they would accept the results of their standard entrance exams together with the sixth-form grades. I told them about the Program starting here and they all were familiar with it—thought it was absurd, actually—and will not honor the idea of the British government’s withholding the records of a student’s earned education. So in France, they will use the baccalauréat général; in Germany, the Abiturzeugnis. These are just two examples. I learned that the Belgium and Netherlands colleges will admit British students if their score on their college’s matriculation examination is in the 80th percentile or greater or if they meet an average of 65th percentile in the International Baccalaureate exam. So the threat of any adverse academic consequences for not participating is a fairly empty one.

“You parents should be secure in the knowledge that your child can safely refuse to participate since there are no legal or academic sanctions available—none mandated by the law—to force them to do it. Norwich Academy may be forced to have the Program, but nothing in the wording in the law forces the students to participate. The law itself provides no academic sanctions, but it’s the fright over the threats from the Education Ministry that there will be academic consequences that’s coercing parents to tell their unwilling children that they have to participate.

“What are other ways that the school can require the kids to get naked? Let me say again that it’s absolutely not by using physical force. You should know that if the school uses any physical force to compel the students, that would actually constitute an assault and battery by the school officials against the child. Under no stretch of the imagination would British law allow physical force to be used with children and that means that the criminal code applies if physical force is used—or even threatened—against them. Could the school expel non-complying pupils? I believe the state has a duty to educate its kids so that’s an unlikely sanction. In short, there’s nothing that the school can do to force participation.

“All right, then. I’ve covered the legal matters that apply to Norwich adopting the Program to run in this school. Now here is some essential academic information for both you parents and school officials. In a scholarly research study conducted at Avery University in the States, a study in which I, along with my fiancée, participated, we conclusively showed that there was a ten-point reduction in median grade-point averages, for the same schools, prior to the start of the Program as compared to grades after the Program was running. That’s equivalent to a full letter grade in the U.S., so what was a ‘B’ average became a ‘C’ average after the Program began. I’ve given a copy of that study to Mrs Luddington. That was a peer-reviewed research paper published in a well-known education journal.