General Director, Richard Mantle has made a statement that you can read here https://operanorth.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/a-statement-from-richard-mantle/
Update (6/7/11): Progress has been made, discussions are ongoing https://operanorth.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/bridlington-update/
Opera North has been working over the past two years on an extended programme of work with community groups in Bridlington. One part of this ‘residency’ was to have been the performance of a specially commissioned community piece from composer Harvey Brough and librettist Lee Hall, called Beached, which featured 300 children and local participants.
Opera North very much regrets that the production can no longer proceed as a result of the position taken by the local authority and the major participating school about the subject matter of the opera. The opera deals with a broad range of issues but the way in which certain themes, including those around sexuality (hetero and homosexual), bullying and drug taking were tackled was at odds with the teaching policy of the local authority on these issues. Opera North has tried to convince both the school concerned and the librettist, Lee Hall, to reach a position on the issue which would have enabled the production to proceed. It is distressing to all concerned that agreement could not be reached.
Opera North takes the view that regardless of whether we agree or not, we have to accept that the school, which includes its teaching staff and the governing body, is legally and morally within its rights, even encouraged within its ‘loco parentis’ status, to make its own judgement about when and how it introduces discussions about sexuality with its children, some of whom are as young as 5. The school has decided, after an enormous amount of thought and reflection with the team at Opera North and the local authority, that they are not geared up to change their plans in such a short timeframe regarding how and when they will do this. As an opera company we have to take the difficult position of accepting that the school is entitled to make this decision and we have to accept that. Furthermore, the school have been supported in this decision by the local authority. In the end this is not about personality or personal opinion, it’s about education policy over which Opera North can have no control.
Although Lee Hall was invited to come to Bridlington to engage with the school and others directly, this was sadly not possible. Despite this, with just 2 weeks to go, we made it clear to the school and to the local authority that we were still willing to proceed with the opera as it stands but, ultimately, the school, with the support of its governing body and the local authority has withdrawn from the project. Opera North has fought hard to resolve the concerns of the school and of Lee Hall but ultimately cannot perform the work without the schools agreement or participation.
Opera North wishes to make it clear that it absolutely rejects any accusations that it is at all discriminatory and is dismayed that anyone would draw these conclusions.
Opera North 
July 4, 2011 at 12:27 pm
[…] Update: Opera North has also released a statement about what happened. Update 2: and another one: In the end this is not about personality or personal opinion, it’s about education policy over whi…. […]
July 4, 2011 at 12:41 pm
So its nothing to do with Opera North being homophobic…..yeah I think this is a bit of a coverup since the press have picked this up.
July 4, 2011 at 12:44 pm
I think the issue here is not “homophobia” or cowardice on the part of Opera North, but a real problem of when LEAs or DfE legislation/guidelines, deem it correct for certain topics to be introduced at a certain age group as part of the citizenship curriculum. I wonder whether the school or the LEA had, in fact, raised these regulations with Opera North in a clear and consistent way much earlier in the planning and writing of this? Even if they had, writing a theatrical piece involves constant revision and adaptation, even without the exigencies in this case of a primary school being involved.
What I find particularly interesting in this row is that all of the criticism has been directed at Opera North, when a large proportion of the blame for the cancellation should also be directed at the school(s) and the Local Education Authority. I appreciate they may have had to take this decision as a result of legislation or guidelines stemming from when specific subjects can be taught to certain age groups but without the school itself being revealed or anyone from the local education authority coming forward to explain the cancellation and accept some of the blame, it is unfair and lazy to place so much accusation at the feet of Opera North.
I think the school and the LEA should explain itself and not allow their partners – Opera North – be demonized in such a way. An explanation of regulations, guidelines and legislation should be forthcoming from them. LGBT Awareness in all schools should be a prerequisite and this project would have tackled it sensitively and through participation and music and language, so I am bewildered as to why the LEA and school(s) did not allow this (is the school in question a faith school?) to go ahead. The real question is not why did Opera North cancel this but why did the school/LEA deem it unsuitable for children? They have a responsibility to teach acceptance and understanding of diversity, be that of religion, sexual orientation, race, culture, class…
July 4, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Out of general curiosity, how do companies recruit children for shows like Grimes, which at least by description has many of the same themes as Hall’s piece?
And is it equally difficult recruiting children for Carmen? Presumably as the children are not involved with the ‘contentious’ scenes, not?
Perhaps best not to mention Marie’s son in Wozzeck…?
Given the nature of much of the C20th stage literature for or involving children, it is difficult to see the LEA in question as being anything other than over sensitive.
July 5, 2011 at 12:06 am
Eloquently pit Allan. As the gay mother of two primary aged kids (5 and 8) I wholeheartedly agree this smacks of allowing ON to take the flack, lack of preparation/insight by the LEA/school and public sector jockeying to pass the buck and take no responsibility , burly rather to hide behind “guidelines” in order to duck away from taking a stand for a minority. Don’t get me started! This is illogical and I infer that the LEA/school governors are reactionaries whobone can only hope are a dying breed.
July 4, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I appreciate what you are saying: it’s just that by backing down, you are unfortunately helping to encourage a very divisive homophobia within education and within our society. I don’t envy your position… I understand that you will put yourselves in a vulnerable position, and I can see that whichever way you go, you lose. Just don’t lose by backing down. Stand by your art and your production. Stand by your writer. It seems that Lee Hall has already made plenty of content adjustments: I can appreciate that this is delicate – but! Art at its best should throw the gauntlet down: it’s patronising and divisive to think that children can’t handle this.
July 4, 2011 at 12:51 pm
But, if there are issues regarding the curriculum then that should have been in the brief given to the writer. If not, then that is a failing of those that wrote the brief, which presumably was Opera North. If not about the brief or the curriculum then it is about standing up to the views of parents.
July 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm
sorry Opera North – this is still not good enough.. it’s not about personality or personal opinion but you contrast that with education policy over which you have ‘no control’. Well no, it’s about artistic policy and your priorities. If and when it became clear that the school was ‘not ready’ to deal with issues of sexuality you should have withdrawn from the collaboration, not left it to the school to withdraw. By prevaricating and not being clear about where your line is on artistic decisions you have let this blow up in your face to the detriment of all concerned (including the kids).
July 4, 2011 at 6:45 pm
maybe i’m missing something… i’m not sure how opera north’s policy or priorities could compel the school to allow the participation of their children…
July 4, 2011 at 7:05 pm
It is about Opera North original statement saying that
it Wappreciate the viewpointW of the school.
The view being that one cannot have a production that has a gay character. That is homphobic.
Opera North needs to issue an apology for that statement!
July 4, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Ultimately the children have missed out on an incredible experience which must take more explaining to them than answering any questions they might have had about the content.
July 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm
If you are dismayed that anyone could draw the conclusion that you are discriminatory, try re-reading your own first response!
It’s most welcome that you have changed what you have to say in response to a barrage of criticism. It would be even more welcome if you could admit to having made a mistake.
July 4, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Exactly as Simon says.
With the post-script: What were you thinking?
“Opera North wishes to make it clear that it absolutely rejects any accusations that it is at all discriminatory and is dismayed that anyone would draw these conclusions.”
What other conclusion were we supposed to make? The indignation is astounding. Your rationale, more clumsily expressed elsewhere but REPEATED here, is that the under-fives (“as young as five…”) should not be allowed to view representations of gay people on stage. Of course that is discriminatory.
Yes, this may well have emanated from the school/LEA, but what you should ABSOLUTELY have done is come down four-square behind your writer. By failing to do so you abandoned your remit to provide access to the arts to all and I for one have already written to the Arts Council to ask them why public funding is supporting an enterprise that would endorse such bigotry.
July 4, 2011 at 1:01 pm
“within its ‘loco parentis’ status” are you serious? Whomever is in charge of communications on this things need to step back, really far back, because you’re just making it worse!
July 4, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I agree, but the front line of responsibility in resisting those ‘concerns’ is with Opera North. They seem not to have understood that their responsibility is not to keep people happy, but to do the right thing, and so, as back-peddling happens, its easy to lay all the blame on the understandably cautious school, and the local authority, whose default position will be one of playing safe.
So, to whom to we turn? Opera North. They should have been shouting this from the rooftops, not leaving it to the author to express his disappointment that nobody was in a position to, or willing to take a stand.
July 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Whilst I fully accept that Opera North have to abide by the decisions of (even a homophobic) local education authority and school when children are involved in the production – the failure to support Lee Hall and to clearly demonstrate a commitment to equality and fairness, and demonstrate homosexuality as something that is appropriate to be censored (ie deleted and not appropriate to be referred to even in a innocuous manner) leads Opera North open to understandable derision and concern. As they are funded by significant Arts Council grants – one would suggest Opera North have a strong responsibility to diversity. This action and lack of any positive statement on equality in connection to this incident suggests Opera North is demonstrating homophobia and lacks credibility as taking a principled stand in terms of equality. Opera North is tarnished by the institutional homophobia of the school involved and East Riding Council and has done little to resolve this by way of apology, positive statement on LGBT issues or stance on how it will avoid similar issues in the future. Shame on Opera North.
July 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Really saddened that all of their hard work has been for nothing. Small minded.
July 4, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Name the school and LEA officials, and I’ll complain to them with just as much outrage. Until you do, you will be criticised in their place.
Is that unreasonable? I simply wish to take my concerns to someone with some influence…
July 4, 2011 at 1:16 pm
You absolutely must complain to the LEA and the school. It is ridiculous that Opera North are left out to hang and dry on their own on this.
July 4, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Yes. I absolutely must. Which one?
July 4, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I, firmly do not believe that the local authority’s unwillingness to countenance discussion of sex with five-year olds, because the advice includes homosexual sex, constitutes homophobia. Also, why is no one brave enough to say that Lee Hall has misjudged this – if I was asked to entertain some five year olds, or even god forbid as an artist to “educate” them, the list of issues I would want to include would not encompass sexual activity. I read it that Lee Hall has constructed this confrontation and willed it into existence, and I find that grotesquely manipulative and totally inappropriate. I was also amused to see Lee Hall (millionaire, presumably) pronouncing in the Guardian in an incredibly patronising and aristocratic way about the “sensitivity” of working class parents.
July 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm
I may be wrong, but as far as I can tell the play contains no homosexual sex or rererence to such.
The apparent offending lines are: “I’m queer” and “I prefer a lad to a lass”
Neither of these lines are ‘about’ sex any more than a photo of a couple holding hands, or a woman offhandedly mentioning her husband are ‘about’ sex.
The idea that even the merest mention of gayness is automatically and only about sexual activity is what’s homophobic when the same doesn’t apply to straight couples.
July 4, 2011 at 2:16 pm
There is no mention of sex in the libretto. So your firmly held beleif has no bearing. And agreeing with the librettist is not cowardice, failing to support him in the face of such bigotry is.
“I read it that Lee Hall has constructed this confrontation and willed it into existence, and I find that grotesquely manipulative and totally inappropriate.”
You read wrongly then, the confrontation is a stand that Lee Hall has taken over an action which has deeply offended him, and wasted a huge amount of his professional time. He’s obviously tried to settle it reasonably, why shouldn’t he name and shame after the way he’s been treated?
July 4, 2011 at 1:18 pm
The school’s entitled to be uncomfortable with the words and subject matter. But has it really taken them five-and-a-half months to realise what they’d signed up for? Or has somebody else forced them to withdraw but leave you to take the flak?
July 4, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Why did Opera North commission the brilliant Lee Hall, known for his examinations of sexuality and working class life, to write the piece if it hadn’t been agreed with the LEA? When one commissions a piece one can a) choose a writer you deem suitable and b) ask that writer to abide within certain guidelines. Opera North appear to have completely ignored Lee Hall’s CV in choosing him for the project.
I am glad to see that you’ve stopped claiming to have only spent £15,000 on the project. Anybody involved in theatre will recognise this as ridiculously misleading.
July 4, 2011 at 1:24 pm
In response to #14:
This is the kind of misrepresentation that inevitably follows in these cases. Pop over to the Yorkshire Post and you’ll find that they are merrily describing the pieces as a “Gay Opera for 300 children”.
The information we have is that the piece included two references to a single character’s sexuality, made in response to his being bullied. The responses amount to his saying: I’m gay, get over it, it’s really not such a big deal. You may be privy to other scenes involving ‘sexual activity’, but I’m not sure what they are.
Are you aware of the level of homophobic bullying in schools (with, incidentally, children who are or will one day be straight being the victims as those who are or will one day be gay or something else)? Any views on the statistics regarding self-harm and suicide as a result of this bullying?
Rather amusing in its own way to see you pronouncing in such a patronising way on what is and is not appropriate for young people, without any apparent reference to the facts.
July 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm
PS – thanks to the BBC, here is the full line which is causing such a ruckus:
“Of course I’m queer/ That’s why I left here / So if you infer / That I prefer / A lad to a lass / And I’m working class / I’d have to concur.”
Not a lot of sexual activity in there.
July 4, 2011 at 1:25 pm
A quick google search with the keywords will give you the name of the school.
July 4, 2011 at 1:31 pm
A terrible message is being sent out to the children of Bridlington today as a result of misadministration and institutional taking of the eye off the ball. This is the responsibility ON has to face not this hurt hand-wringing and endless assertions that you did all you could. Obviously you didn’t as this should have been dealt with months ago when the parameters of the project were set out. A project based on Britten written by the author of Billy Elliot- how was a gay theme a surprise to anyone? The attitudes of the school and the LEA are just the attitudes Britten wrote of in Herring, Grimes, Wingrave.
But then this was something the Education Department was up to and it should have all blown over and the event happened and nobody was any the wiser.
Take a stand, don’t be mealy-mouthed, you cannot triangulate out of this and emerge with your artistic reputation and honour intact.
July 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm
If ON refuse to have an opinion, then tell the school yourself how you feel:
Bay School
“promotes positive attitudes, progress and commitment to education”.
Does it?
Let them know:
bay.primary@eastriding.gov.uk
July 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Right. So in conclusion: you defend the right of an LEA to be homophobic and have to ‘respect’ their right to do so. But you are not willing to support the stance of a lauded gay writer working on a landmark production? Sorry, but this statement is as weak and disappointing as the first one.
I’d love to have seen your reaction of the same school refused to have black characters. You’d have reacted the same, would you? Thought not.
I think this is a decision you will come to regret bitterly in the weeks to come. And as a resident of Leeds, I’m afraid to say that, today, I’m ashamed of you and what you’ve done to your reputation.
The show must go on? Apparently not if there any gay characters in it.
July 4, 2011 at 2:00 pm
So you’re sorry that people inferred that you are discriminatory. Hardly to be wondered at from your original statement. You said
“On the other hand, we can appreciate the viewpoint of the school about when they make the decision to teach PSHE to their pupils”.
“Appreciate”? Or do you now mean “understand”?
You are backtracking fast here, but you now need to come out to admit you got it badly wrong.
July 4, 2011 at 2:01 pm
In your first statement, you appeared to share responsibility for the decision with the school and LEA by putting forward their arguments without challenging the discriminatory nature of those arguments. It was as if Opera North and the school/LEA spoke with one voice. You should really not be surprised that people drew the conclusion that Opera North was colluding with a discriminatory decision.
Now you are putting the responsibility for the cancellation of the production firmly on the school and LEA.
These may indeed be the key players in the final outcome. But everything we read suggests that Opera North was the organising and managing body responsible for the project. In his Guardian article, Lee Hall says that Opera North informed him of the requirement for further alterations, arising specifically from the leading character’s sexuality, only two weeks ago. It seems clear that Opera North was the intermediary which brought all the production elements together and undertook the negotiating role between partners.
So, having put the responsibility for the withdrawal of the children from the project onto the LEA and school, who are you going to blame for the sheer mismanagement of the whole project? Who was it who failed to ensure a total understanding of the themes of the piece across all the participating groups from the very beginning? Who was it who failed to explore all the possible sensitivities, objections and concerns from all participants before the serious work on the production started?
The weakness of the initial preparation for this production seems evident from the regular stream of requests for script changes which passed from the school, via Opera North, to the author and composer. Why did this not ring alarm bells that all was not well between the partners in this production?
It looks to the outsider as if a lot of compromising and shifting of ground went on throughout the shaping of this piece, and much of it seems to have been driven by the school. And at some point in this process, Opera North should have recognised that its core values were being overridden – especially its values around equality and diversity. But you didn’t. And when it all culminated in a request to the author to avoid expressing the leading character’s sexuality, he stood firm, you caved in, you sided with the school, and the project crashed.
Now, you can move blame around as much as you want; and you can express surprise that anyone should suspect Opera North of being discriminatory. But you can’t avoid the accusation of gross mismanagement in those areas where Opera North was specifically responsible for bringing this production to performance. And one of the outcomes of that mismanagement has been a very clear perception of discrimination – whether Opera North likes this or not.
July 4, 2011 at 2:18 pm
The LEA is not only spineless, but discriminatory and unfortunately if that’s the best statement from Opera North it doesn’t do them any favours either. Arts should challenge and engage. Gay characters are NOT controversial in 2011, for goodness sake, unless perhaps you live in Brid. Stand by your artist, stand by your principles, maybe another school would value the opportunity to work with Lee Hall and ON. I pity the kids and their parents involved in the said school.
July 4, 2011 at 2:29 pm
I find ON’s statement totally equivocal and unconvincing. They have hardly addressed any of the issues in The Guardian’s article.
Please join me in writing a complaint to The Arts Funding Council.
The ON should condemn all forms of discrimination including homophobia which this clearly is.
July 4, 2011 at 2:37 pm
“The opera deals with a broad range of issues but the way in which certain themes, including those around sexuality (hetero and homosexual), bullying and drug taking were tackled was at odds with the teaching policy of the local authority on these issues.”
Is it or is it not the case that that the sole final objection was to a character declaring that he is gay? If there is much more too it than this then please make this clear, because according to Lee Hall’s article this seemed to be the sticking point.
“the school is within its rights… to make its own judgement about when and how it introduces discussions about sexuality with its children”
According to Lee Hall’s article the school’s objection is to introducing a gay character. Would the school object to introducing a married character? After all, being heterosexual is surely as much about “sexuality” as being homosexual.
This is about allowing young children to watch/read about gay characters, and meet openly gay people at school. You don’t have to teach PSHE/consult the curriculum to introduce gay characters any more than you should have to in order to introduce a married couple into a school environment.
And I copy my comment from your first statement…
At the end of the day this isn’t just about one community – it is about our equality laws as a nation. One community should not be able to dictate that it doesn’t want its children to see a gay character in an opera because it doesn’t fit with their values or they don’t think their children are ready. Such discrimination should not be sanctioned and the LEA/school is clearly out of step with society and the law on this matter.
I understand that Opera North’s relationship with the local community may be at risk here, but there are fundamental principles of equality at risk here too. If those of us who believe that children should be able to watch a gay character with the same acceptance as a ethnic minority or disabled character do not stand up for it, then homosexuality will continue to be subject to terrible prejudice.
I would, again, like to invite Opera North to issue a bolder statement here. To speak out and admit that this LEA/primary school is acting unfairly and possibly illegally. To let the country know whether or not you believe that there is a place for homosexual characters in opera for children of all ages. Because if you don’t, it won’t just be the education authority you will upset.
July 4, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Has no one talked to the parents of the children involved? It’s all very well the school objecting but if the parents are happy with the content and for their children to be involved then surely this is a non issue.
July 4, 2011 at 3:09 pm
This statement is at odds with Mr Hall’s version of events. I have no idea which one is more accurate. But the fact remains that by failing to stand up to ignorance and bigotry — which is what it was — you are condoning it.
Cowardly, pathetic, and if not actually homophobic, then at least condoning of homophobia — which is almost the same thing, don’t you think?
July 4, 2011 at 3:29 pm
It is fair to say that Opera North does not deserve all the blame for this; however it’s also true that it was unwilling to stand behind the author or stand up to the school. This and the other piece make it clear that if the writer had agreed, Opera North would have been happiest to just cut out the gay reference altogether and pretend it was never there; they suggest that censorship would have been the best answer.
July 4, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I was a child actor in an Opera North production in the 1980’s. Much of what we did back then would have been banned now such as taking us out of school to go on tour with the company and allowing us to stay up very late for evening performances (not to mention sitting in a small room with two women chaprone’s constantly chain smoking!). We children loved every single second of our involvement. East Riding Council and the local school are taking away a hugely important experience from these children. My time with Opera North taught me self confidence, not to fear public performances/large crowds and gave me a life long appreciation of the arts which I may not have got elsewhere as my parents dislike opera. I think the head teacher needs to organise a parents meeting with Lee Hall and Opera North and let everyone concerned air their views before an attempt at consensus. Anything less is robbing these children of one of the most rewarding experiences of their childhood.
July 4, 2011 at 3:55 pm
[…] I fail to see how the school’s apparently small-minded decision is Opera North’s fault. Its statement says that it tried to reach a compromise which all parties were happy with, in order that the […]
July 4, 2011 at 4:08 pm
This is clearly discrimination and should have been condemned by ON.
ON should make to clear to the school and the local education authority (East Riding LEA) that it will withdraw from all current/future projects.
Is ON seriously suggesting that it would have sat on the fence if the issues raised were racist/sexist/religious ?
July 4, 2011 at 4:12 pm
I must say I am amazed at the vehemency of anger against Opera North. It seems to me there should have been a resolution found to this problem a long, long time ago, and that Opera North should share the blame for this dragging on until so close to the production, but this blame should be shared just as much with the writer and with the school (and local authority). What else can Opera North publicly do other than respect the ultimate decision of the school? I suspect privately they are incensed, but they will also need to continue projects with this, and other communities for many years to come.
They should be accused of not doing enough to find a solution between the parties, but where the charge of homophobia and diversity issues comes from I can’t understand?
The story really should be about the local education authority and their outdated ideas on when such a subject is appropriate to bring up with children. I am a father of a 3 and 5 year old, and personally believe a dramatic story like this one is an ideal way to open such a discussion up with children. I would vote for the show to go ahead, but I would also respect the right of the school at large to have the final say.
July 4, 2011 at 5:36 pm
“…this blame should be shared just as much with the writer and with the school (and local authority)…” I can’t see that the writer shares any blame here. He was the one who had already made numerous script amendments throughout the production process, but rightly drew the line when asked to put a gay character back into the closet. He delivered what he was asked to deliver: it was the school which pulled out.
“…What else can Opera North publicly do other than respect the ultimate decision of the school?…” They can distance themselves from the judgment the school/LEA has made, not ‘respect’ it. And in their first statement they actually seemed to align themselves with it!
“…where the charge of homophobia and diversity issues comes from I can’t understand…” Opera North were prepared to subordinate their own standards (and those expected of them by their supporters) to the position adopted by the school. This is confirmed by the fact that they repeatedly asked the writer to come into line with the school’s views, when in fact they should have been supporting the writer against the school’s views.
“…I would also respect the right of the school at large to have the final
say…” Perhaps, but they must also be prepared to take responsibility for their actions, particularly when working in partnership with a number of community groups and commissioning bodies who will be seriously affected by their very late, unilateral and highly questionable decision.
July 4, 2011 at 5:06 pm
So what are the 300 children who have rehearsed for weeks going to be told? Surely they are going to be very disappoitented that all there hard work is for nothing as they don’t get the “reward” of performing on a stage at the end of it.
Surely if the brief was to write for a cast including children then someone should of asked the LEA to read the script before reheearsals started? And as others have said, they hired a writer whose work has previously explored homosexuality so what did the LEA expect?
And again as another commenter said, why is a character expressing that he was bullied for being gay any different to a discussion on a married character. Or why is being the character complaining of vein bullied as he was gay any different to being bullied as he was black? I’m sure if this was all in regards to a Muslim or Jewish character being bullied the LEA wouldn’t of said stop we don’t teach R.E. until age 12 so they can’t deal with it?
July 4, 2011 at 5:52 pm
I understand a 3rd statement is about to be releaased from Opera North (according to their twitter). Will this be consistant? Will it have courage? will it demonstrate any commitment to equality and to artistic integrity?
July 4, 2011 at 6:45 pm
The third statement is here – https://operanorth.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/a-statement-from-richard-mantle/ – and is much more the kind of statement which Opera North should have come out with in the first place.
This is probably where future comments should be posted.
July 4, 2011 at 7:11 pm
“Opera North takes the view that regardless of whether we agree or not, we have to accept that the school, which includes its teaching staff and the governing body, is legally and morally within its rights, even encouraged within its ‘loco parentis’ status, to make its own judgement about when and how it introduces discussions about sexuality with its children, some of whom are as young as 5.”
Your second statement is still homophobic and still cowardly.
You think a school is – ‘morally’ within its rights – to make gay people invisible to children!
Then you state -Opera North wishes to make it clear that it absolutely rejects any accusations that it is at all discriminatory and is dismayed that anyone would draw these conclusions.-
Hypocrisy!
July 5, 2011 at 9:47 pm
As a full time music/drama teacher in both state and private schools I find the whole education system full of homophobia. Employees of schools who are gay have to hide their sexuality from management or risk sanctions or, on several occasions in my 10 years of teaching, termination of contract for other reasons once their sexuality has become known. As a former opera professional and music graduate I have many many gay friends and worked with many gay people in the theatre and music world for over 24 years before becoming a teacher – 14 of them with Opera North. Never once did I encounter any homophobia: gay & straight colleagues worked comfortably alongside each other and respected each others’ rights to their own sexuality. Conclusion: education is terrified of homosexuality and most teachers don’t want anything to do with introducing the fact of it to their pupils.
July 6, 2011 at 8:29 am
I know it would be difficult for Opera North but they surely could have given more support to the writer’s principles on this. The effect of not doing so is regressive to society in general and children in particular.
I was a bullied schoolboy in a conservative working class bit of Yorkshire and, consequently, got away from school as soon as I could rather than do what I should have done, i.e. get my A levels with a view to going to music college or University to study music. 14 years later I did get to music college, in the same city as where Opera North is based, but what did I find? In the wake of Section 28, I encountered both crude and institutional homophobia and discrimination, much of it justified by not upsetting parents of students. This in the context of studying and performing music by innumberable gay composers.
I thought this kind of thing was pretty much gone from such arts organisations.