If GetReligion readers search the nearly 17 years of material on our site for this term — “doctrinal covenant” — they will find five or six screens (depending on browser settings) worth of posts. Click here and explore that if you wish.
What we have here is story after story about disputes between private religious schools (or similar institutions) and students, parents, faculty members or staffers. The vast majority of the reports are about LGBTQ-related clashes rooted in centuries of Christian and Jewish doctrines about sexuality and marriage. There may be cases involving Muslim doctrine, but they don’t seem to make it into the news.
Private religious schools — whether on the doctrinal left or right — are voluntary associations, and the word “voluntary” is crucial. No one has to attend one of these religious schools or work for them. However, it’s important (from a legal point of view) that students, parents, etc., clearly acknowledge that they are consenting to follow — or at least not openly attack — the doctrines and traditions that define the life of a religious private institution.
Thus, most of these religious schools require students, parents, faculty, etc., to SIGN a “doctrinal covenant” that states these teachings and the school rules that are linked to them.
Readers who glance through those GetReligion posts about news coverage of these cases will notice that these media reports rarely mention the existence of these covenants (they are often referred to as mere “rules,” thus failing to note their doctrinal content) and, if they are mentioned, the stories usually fail to note that people involved in disputes with these schools voluntarily signed them. In other words, who needs to know that First Amendment issues are involved?
This brings us to the “rainbow cake girl” story, as covered by The Louisville Courier Journal, The Washington Post and other newsrooms. The headline in the Courier Journal shows how this story is being framed: “Louisville Christian school expelled student over a rainbow cake, family says.”
Here are some crucial details at the top of the story:
Kimberly Alford told The Courier Journal that until Jan. 6, her 15-year-old daughter had been a freshman at Whitefield Academy, a private school at 7711 Fegenbush Lane that serves students in preschool through 12th grade.
That’s when Alford said she received an email from Whitefield Academy’s head of school, Bruce Jacobson, explaining how her daughter was being expelled “immediately due to a post on social media.”
Alford had recently posted a photo on her Facebook page showing her daughter celebrating her birthday in late December at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant. In the photo, the girl is wearing a sweater featuring a rainbow design and sitting by a colorful, rainbow-themed cake. …
In the email, Alford said Jacobson wrote that the picture “demonstrates a posture of morality and cultural acceptance contrary to that of Whitefield Academy’s beliefs” and follows two years of “lifestyle violations.”
Now, if you know anything at all about education in this litigious age or ours, you know that school officials cannot discuss the details of this case — because of privacy laws.
Frankly, the school’s communications with the media went further than I thought that they would, in terms of arguing that this student was not being punished because of a rainbow birthday cake. The cake was the symbolic final straw, after many covenant violations, according to officials at this school, which is operated by a Southern Baptist church.
The Courier Journal report does have some interesting other statements of alleged fact. Such as:
But Alford said her daughter is not gay and the cake was simply a fun treat, with the bakery receipt listing the design as “assorted colors.” …
“I just feel like it’s a label (school officials) have put on her,” Alford said. “Just because I’m wearing a rainbow doesn’t mean I’m gay.”
Then, from the viewpoint of the school:
Jacobson, Whitefield Academy’s head of school, told The Courier Journal that the expulsion came after “two years of continuous violations of our student code of conduct.”
“Inaccurate media reports are circling stating that the student in question was expelled from our school solely for a social media post,” the school said in a statement. “In fact, she has unfortunately violated our student code of conduct numerous times over the past two years.” …
It is unfortunate that one of the student’s parents chose to post internal family matters on social media, and we hope our former student is not adversely affected by what her parents chose to make public about her situation.”
Note the reference to social-media materials. That’s a potential source of information — for reporters willing to investigate truth claims on both sides of this story. Hold that thought.
So what about the school’s doctrinal covenant? How did the Courier Journal team handle that crucial part of the story?
Well there is a discussion of a parent/student handbook, and even a link to that .pdf document. Here is a key handbook quotation, care of the news report:
“On occasion, the atmosphere or conduct within a particular home may be counter or in opposition to the biblical lifestyle the school teaches. This includes, but is not limited to, sexual immorality, homosexual orientation or the inability to support Biblical standards of right and wrong,” the handbook states. …
“In such cases, the school reserves the right, within its sole discretion, to refuse admission of an applicant or to discontinue enrollment of a student.”
So what factual detail is missing? #DUH
This is where blogger Rod Dreher enters the scene, with a newsy post under this headline: “Rainbow Cake Girl: The True Story.”
Using his social-media skills, Dreher (a friend of mine for decades) contacted parents linked to this school and dug for background information from people who could, legally, talk. Basically, it appears that they told him about online sources of images and texts, posted by the expelled student and her family.
But — surprise! — someone also end him a copy of the legal agreement that parents and students sign when they enter this private, Christian, voluntary educational institution. You can see a piece of that document embedded in this post.
The Courier Journal story never mentions that the student’s mother, at the very least, would have signed this statement, which specifically mentions following the school’s doctrine-based policies. So, once again, a crucial legal fact — if you’re into things like religious liberty and the importance of voluntary associations — is missing.
The parents from this school who talked to Dreher are, of course, voices on one side of the story. It would be important to ask the expelled student’s parents to respond to that information, to get their point of view.
Then there is the reality of the girl’s social media accounts, which Dreher studied. In one image she celebrates “me finally coming out.” In another, she celebrates finally getting a girlfriend. There is a picture of her sitting in bed (her words) with her girlfriend. There is a photo in which, dressed as a male, she poses before taking a girl to a dance at another school. In another image, she tosses her Bible into a washer or a dryer (or there is a picture of someone else doing this).
Dreher also took a screenshot of a profane post (since taken down) by the student’s father, in which he defends his gay daughter and attacks the school.
In this day and age, it is common for reporters to seek out this kind of information in social-media.
The question: Did anyone in the newsroom want to take that step when covering this story?
Please read this thread. I continue to be amazed at the genre of _national_ news stories about local Christian schools disciplining students according to voluntarily agreed-to codes of conduct. https://t.co/Gfk50IBUDt
— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 17, 2020
How about another newsroom? How about The Washington Post, which ran a story featuring material from the Courier Journal and its own reporting.
So did this elite-newsroom report include any information about the doctrinal covenant and the consent document signed by members of a student’s family? This is as close as the story gets:
Whitefield Academy officials did not provide details on the alleged transgressions that preceded Kayla’s expulsion. The school cited Kentucky law and its own guidelines in the decision to expel her, adding, “All parents who enroll their children in our private school know upfront that we ask the students to adhere to a lifestyle informed by our Christian beliefs.”
Alford acknowledged that Kayla had been disciplined for several behavioral issues in the past. She said her daughter was once caught with an e-cigarette and, in another instance, got in trouble after cutting out of school during lunch. The mother confirmed that her daughter was placed on probation in October and has since worked to improve her grades and correct her behavior.
The family was stunned by the school’s rationale for the expulsion.
So, readers, what did we learn from this latest addition to the “doctrinal covenant” files here at GetReligion?
ybvdadminuser
