Download this publication - PULP

102 Chapter 3
The reasons for thinking that the burden placed on the church may
have been substantial need further discussion. The first reason to think so
is the idea that churches transmit beliefs and moral values through the
example set by teachers in church-run educational institutions. In Strydom,
the church's position reflects the Aristotelian (or aretaic) view that moral
virtue is not simply taught, but is acquired by pupils through their
association with teachers who are themselves virtuous, with the corollary
that it is wrong to place pupils with teachers who are not virtuous, because
pupils might thereby be led to conclude that non-virtuous conduct
(including active homosexuality, from the church's perspective) is morally
acceptable. 126 It is in the light of such a theory that the church's concern
makes sense, that its teachers should be role models (in the sense of leading
exemplary Christian lives) and that Strydom's homosexual lifestyle would
set a bad example to students. In the Aristotelian conception, teachers
teach moral values not didactically, as in the case of arithmetic, but
through example. In this view, it makes no sense to say, as does Basson J,
that the church's concern about Strydom's setting a bad example is
misplaced because there was no evidence that he wanted to influence
students. 127 Irrespective of his intention not to influence students in
matters of sexuality, in the Aristotelian view his example is itself
influential. As Basson J acknowledges, it is not far-fetched to view
Strydom as a ‘mentor of the students on a personal ... level’. 128 A mentor,
according to the OED, is someone who ‘acts as a guide and adviser to
another person, especially one who is younger and less experienced’.
Strydom's position might not have been one of a spiritual or religious
leader or instructor, but as a mentor who acts as guide and adviser to those
younger and less experienced, it is hard to accept Basson J's contention
(reflected in (5) above) that, at least in relation to his pupils, he ‘was not in
a position of leadership’. 129
Courts appear to have accepted that teachers exert an influence over
pupils not only through the advice or instruction they give, but also in
virtue of the example they set. As the Canadian Supreme Court observed
in Ross v New Brunswick School District No 15, 130 ‘[t]eachers occupy positions
of trust and confidence, and exert considerable influence over their
students as a result of their positions’. 131 The Court quotes Canadian legal
academic Allison Reyes: 132
Teachers are a significant part of the unofficial curriculum because of their
status as ‘medium’. In a very significant way the transmission of prescribed
126
For a version of this view of moral virtue, see I Scheffler Of human potential: An essay in
the philosophy of education (1985).
127 Strydom (n 8 above) para 22.
128
As above.
129 As above.
130 [1996] 1 SCR 825.
131
Ross (n 130 above) para 43 (my emphasis).
132 As above.