The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) is conducting a public consultation on the Discrimination Law Review. The consultation paper contains several areas that have great relevance to education regarding the freedom and rights of school sponsoring bodies, school governance, curriculum changes as well as moral education for the young. It proposes to change the present definition of marital status, or marriage, from that of the traditional formally registered union between a man and a woman to one that includes mere de facto relationships, whether heterosexual or same-sex in nature; de facto relationships can also simply mean cohabitation of members of the opposite sex or the same sex. Furthermore, any protection for people in a marital relationship from discrimination could be extended to those in de facto relationships, or even former de facto relationships. Such redefinition of marital status and public endorsement of cohabitation by law promotes casual unions. It turns traditional Chinese values and social norms upside down, undermining the whole foundation of our family system and causing it to weaken further, if not crumble immediately. How would our parents and society view it? Many local schools are established and run by bodies that have strong religious backgrounds, with unequivocal opposing stands on such matters, or which adhere strongly to traditional values on marriage and family. EOC's proposals, if passed, would deprive these sponsoring bodies of their right to religious beliefs or moral orientations and also freedom to make moral judgments and choices accordingly in areas such as the appointment of teachers and principals (not appointing one on sexual orientation grounds will be impermissible), calling into question their autonomy in school administration. More importantly, the new provisions will challenge their convictions about marriage and family, or even their views of life and its ethics, which are usually embedded in the school aims and purposes. Even though the proposal provides for exemptions for religious bodies, they can in no way safeguard the freedom of these sponsoring bodies in upholding their moral convictions and religious beliefs. EOC proposes to broaden the scope of the law concerning sexual harassment to include de facto relationships. Employers (the incorporated management committees, in the schools' case) will be held responsible for not taking reasonable action against alleged harassment in their schools, and schools for not taking reasonable action against harassment among students. If the proposals go through, it can also be envisaged that on one hand schools will have to accommodate, or be compelled by future government directives to adopt new guidelines on teaching about marriage and family. They will have to put same-sex relationships or de facto marriages on an equal footing as traditional heterosexual marriages. And schools will not be able to speak out against same-sex marriage, or cohabitation at assemblies as it could amount to harassment. How can schools hold their own when facing growing problems of promiscuity and teenage pregnancy under a new legal definition of marital status? The EOC's own study on discrimination reveals only small percentages of discrimination of marital status (9 per cent) and sexual orientation (0.2 per cent) in the workplace. So why the need for such drastic changes with such serious impact on education? It just baffles the mind. Robin Cheung is a retired school principal
