OH: Is A District Firing A Teacher Because He's Gay?

Tiny South Central School District in Greenwich, Ohio, is stirring controversy by canning its choir director, and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with his job performance. I will warn you ahead of time-- yes, this is a thing that is happening in 2025. 

Decades ago, a district in my neighborhood fired a gym teacher for being gay. They didn't hide it behind any kind of vague language; they just said they wanted to fire her because she was gay. So they did. And she sued their asses off and won. 

Since those days, uber-conservative districts have learned a lesson. Unfortunately, the lesson was not "Don't discriminate against people because of sexual orientation," but was instead "Don't say out loud that you are firing people because they are gay."

The crowd turns out for the March meeting.
  Terry Burton/Norwalk Reflector   

Greenwich, Ohio is a tiny place; fewer than 1,500 citizens located smack in the middle of Central Ohio's Big Flat Nothing. The district is the result of Greenwich's consolidation with North Fairfield schools back in 1960. The high school has around 200 students in grades 9-12. 

The district hired Alex Kuhn last year to handle the choir, and by accounts, he did a good job with his chorus getting high scores in district contests and advancing to states. But apparently word got out soon that is gay and in a committed relationship with a partner (it's not clear from what I've read whether or not they are married). And that has become a point of controversy. 

By mid-March, the region was worked up over the issue. The culture panic crowd was agitating for Kuhn's contract to be non-renewed for next year. The school board meeting drew a crowd that would be large for a school board meeting in a town with more than 1500 people. The board responded by refusing to expand public comment time (15 minutes with 3 minutes per speaker) and refusing to let anyone who hadn't signed up ahead of time to speak. Also, they announced that anyone who tried to make a public complaint against a board member or employee would be shut off. 

One 2019 graduate spoke in favor of diversity and tolerance, and also pointed out the hypocrisy that heterosexual staff can speak openly about their families and personal lives, but Kuhn is (allegedly) denied the same freedom. 

But another community member rose to express his "disappointment" over the hiring practices, and his hope that an unnamed staff member would not be rehired.

Another audience member expressed a concern that Kuhn's "values are inconsistent with the values of the community and district. The district "can't allow this to take root and snowball" and that "God will not honor this path unless we choose to alter the path." He asked four questions:

1. Was the board aware of Mr. Kuhn's lifestyle?
2. Can his contract be rescinded?
3. Can the district buy out his contract?
4. What can the board and administration do to insure this will never happen again?

 The board appears to have been split, with two members unwilling to go on record one way or the other. As a result, the vote to renew Kuhn's contract failed. 

Those opposed were remarkably coy about the actual issue. The one newspaper that covered the meeting (Terry Burton for the Tandem Network) couldn't get anyone to comment on exactly what policy the board was reviewing, nor was anyone apparently explicit about the "this" in the "this will never happen again." Disappointed? About what.

But Kuhn's defenders seem to have no doubt about what they're defending him from. A petition at change.org supporting Kuhn has 1,294 signatures and numerous comments praising the teacher and condemning the attempt to end his employment over homophobia on the board and in the community. 

What's the fear? Students will learn that LGBTQ persons exist in the world, leading perfectly ordinary lives? Is this that same old notion that nobody is born LGBTQ and therefor every LGBTQ person is probably a recruiter? Are people just freaking out about LGBTQ persons for no particular reason beyond vague moral panic? I suppose one is entitled to disapprove of LGBRQ persons (though it strikes me like disapproving of blondes), but why should that disapproval require stripping a young man of his job?

I wish I could provide more detail, but there's very little real media coverage of rural Ohio, so this is pulled from the one press account about the March 17 meeting and a plethora of online comments that center on the April meeting, which appears to be the one at which the board failed to hire Kuhn for next year. One commenter noted that the board opened the meeting with a prayer. Several others suggest he may have cause for a lawsuit, and that certainly seems possible, though what young teacher would want to go through that. This is an ugly chapter for the district, but time will tell if there is more of this story ahead.