Télécoup Network D'Informacio!Le Court Suprème D'Inyursta règlas contré LBGTQHV!
Inyurstan Supreme Court rules against LGBTQ+!
Hello everyone, I'm Micheléna Valéro, and this is Télécoup News!
We have breaking updates on the Supreme Court case Pólèrmo et Iglesias vs Departément D'Éducaçion (2018). The justices have finished deliberation and made their final verdict - ruling against Pólèrmo & Iglesias and in favor of the Departément D'Éducaçion under Président Jean-Baptiste Calderone and Secretarie D'Éducaçion Martina Sant-Florence. The court ruling was 12 - 7, finding that purportedly anti-LGBTQ materials in the curriculum of publically-funded higher education institutions did not violate the 7th Amendment.
Palaçia dul Court Suprème D'Inyursta.
Eva-Marie Pólèrmo (22) and Pablo "Xymander" Iglesias (26), both students at Univeristé National de Jacques Duvalier in Fjorda DeRivèra, sued the school for discrimination based on the curriculum taught in an undergraduate-level course on human reproduction. The case was taken to an appeals court, and later dropped in favor of a case directly against the national education department. Pólèrmo and Iglesias claimed that by teaching 1) that homosexuality was "abnormal" and "natural selection indefinitely favors heterosexuality in any sexual organism" and 2) that gender-theory is quote "western late 20th-century social construct" and gender being "made up by people with no basis in biology"; the school was effectively violating their 7th Amendment rights and subjecting them to second-class citizenry and discrimation based on their identity.
Officials of UNJD and later DDÉ argued that no students are inherently forced to take the course on human reproduction save nursing, pre-med, and some biology tracks (of which neither individual was). They also claimed that their cirrculum is merely "stating the facts" and not making any kind of school policy or targeting any student for any means. DDÉ also stated they have never, nor have any plans to push discriminatory practices, but that "certain facts are valuable and necessary for developing professionals in certain fields, and we cannot risk the integrity of our future professional workforce due to the subjective opinions and emotions of an minuscule yet vocal minority."
Jùstice Claudio de la Renné delivered the majority opinion:We find that in this case where personal comfort is challenged by matter-of-fact statement and instruction, that no violation of the 7th Amendment has occurred. The status of a public university, through public funding and direction by an extension of the national government, is effectively an asset of the state; however, this status does not imply nor assume any instance of de-jure discrimination or improper treatment. Evidence presented in this case produces no further proof discriminatory practices or denial of any individual equal access to services and protections based on their identity.
Jùstice Bernard Ramirez-Cheveu delivered the dissenting minority opinion:We believe that in this case a functional and de-facto violation of the 7th Amendment has occurred. By teaching and directing to teach such controversial statements in a public education institution the university, in question and by extension the Departément D'Éducaçion, have created an environment where invalidation and devaluing of an entire sub-community, regardless of how small, is legitimized by a public institution. This sets a dangerous precedent wherein public institutions may endorse an attitude of disrespect amongst the general population and effectively result in the treatment of various minorities as second-class citizens.
So far we have heard no new statements from the accusatory parties nor the DDÉ following the ruling. Univeristé National de Jacques Duvalier has stated prior to the ruling that it will allow both students to continue their degrees as normal. Eva-Marie Pólèrmo, a lesbian, has stated she plans on continuing her degree regardless of the ruling; while Pablo "Xymander" Iglesias has hintedhesheit"they" may look at leaving the country dependent on ruling, although nothing has been confirmed at this time.
As usual, the international reaction of this landmark case has yet to be seen.
This is Micheléna Valéro with Télécoup News, tune in next time...
COMMENTS