gender equity – ��

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Montgomery Parents’ Challenge to LGBTQ+ Book Rules

Steve Crane — Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:01:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear an appeal from a group of Montgomery County parents challenging a school system policy that does not let them opt their lower elementary school children out of classes that use LGBTQ+ books.

Parents, who have lost repeatedly in lower courts, have argued that the books interfere with their religious liberty rights by exposing their young children to gender and sexuality norms that conflict with their religion.

Their Supreme Court appeal has drawn supportive legal filings from a range of and conservative legal scholars.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

But the county said in filings with the court that the books were not part of a coercive effort, but were merely available in the reading materials available to children in lower grades.

The lower courts that sided with the school system were simply upholding “decades-old consensus that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive,” the county said.

The court, without comment, said released Friday afternoon that it would hear the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor. No hearing date has been set, but arguments are likely to be scheduled for later this spring with a decision before the justices recess this summer.

A Montgomery County schools spokesperson said Friday the system would not comnent on the court’s decision to take the case. But in a statement from the Becket Fund, the law firm representing the parents, opponents of the policy hailed the chance to make their case again, after more than two years of futility.

“The Court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality,” said Eric Baxter, a vice president and senior counsel at Becket.

The dispute began almost three years ago, in the 2022-23 school year, when the county unveiled a list of “LGBTQ+-inclusive texts for use in the classroom,” including books for grades as low as kindergarten and pre-K.

Title challenged by the parent include “My Rainbow,” abouta mother who creates a rainbow-colored wig for her transgender child; “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about a girl worried that an uncle’s wedding means she will lose time with him, until his boyfriend befriends her; and “Pride Puppy,” about a puppy lost at a Pride parade. The book, for pre-K and kindergarten, goes through each letter of the alphabet, describing people the puppy might have met at the parade, inviting student to search for drag kings and queens, lip rings, leather, underwear and other items, according to court documents.

School officials said in court filings in lower courts that the books were not part of “explicit instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary school, and that no student or adult is asked to change how they feel about these issues.” The books were merely added to the county’s list of reading materials to better represent the county’s entire population and to “include characters, families, and historical figures from a range of cultural, racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds,” documents say.

School system officials have said that teachers are expected to make the books available in the classroom, recommend them as appropriate for particular students or offer them “as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or paired reading groups; or to use them as a read aloud” in class.

Parents who objected were originally allowed to opt their children out of lessons that included the books. But the school system in March 2023 said opt-outs would not be allowed, beginning in the 2023-24 school year. Parents are allowed to opt their children out of parts of sex education, but not other parts of the curriculum, like language arts.

The parents sued, arguing that refusing to let them take their kids out of the classes infringed on their First Amendment freedom of religion rights.

In to the Supreme Court, they said the policy exposed the children to gender and sexuality norms that contradict their religious beliefs. The policy gives parents — who include Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox families — “no protection against forced participation in ideological instruction by government schools,” the petition said.

The parents said they are not trying to ban the books in Montgomery County schools, but merely seeking the ability to keep their children out from being exposed to ideas that conflicted with their firmly held religious beliefs.

So far, the underlying elements of the case have not been heard, merely the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction of the school system’s opt-out policy, which the parents have repeatedly lost. That fact was noted by the county, which said “there is no pressing issue here” that can’t be worked out by letting the case proceed in regular course through the lower courts.

A federal district judge in August 2023 denied the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction and a divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2024, writing that the parents had not met the high burden of showing that they were likely to win on their claim that the lack of an opt-out policy was actually coercing them to abandon part of their faith.

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee, said that because the record in preliminary injunction hearings was extremely sparse, the parents had not been able to “connect the requisite dots” to show that a burden on their First Amendment rights existed.

While the parents had shown that the books “could be used in ways that would confuse or mislead children and, in particular, that discussions relating to their contents could be used to indoctrinate their children into espousing views that are contrary to their religious faith. … none of that is verified by the limited record that is before us,” Agee wrote.

“Should the Parents in this case or other plaintiffs in other challenges to the Storybooks’ use come forward with proof that a teacher or school administrator is using the Storybooks in a manner that directly or indirectly coerces children into changing their religious views or practices, then the analysis would shift in light of that record,” Agee wrote.

The fact that parents might feel forced to forgo a public school education and pay for private school was not sufficiently coercive to be a burden on the parents’ First Amendment rights, based on the record so far, he wrote.

In a dissent, Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. said parents had met their burden for a preliminary injunction while the case was heard.

“Both sides of the issue advance passionate arguments. Some insist diversity and inclusion should be prioritized over the religious rights of parents and children. Others argue the opposite,” Quattlebaum wrote.

But the parents have made the case for an injunction of the opt-out policy for now, he wrote.

“The parents have shown the board’s decision to deny religious opt-outs burdened these parents’ right to exercise their religion and direct the religious upbringing of their children by putting them to the choice of either compromising their religious beliefs or foregoing a public education for their children,” Quattlebaum wrote. “I would … enjoin the Montgomery County School Board of Education from denying religious opt-outs for instruction to K-5 children involving the texts.”

Grace Morrison, a board member of Kids First, an organization of parents and teachers fighting for an opt-out policy, said the current system “has pushed inappropriate gender indoctrination on our children.” She welcomed the high court’s decision to take up the case.

“I pray the Supreme Court will stop this injustice, allow parents to raise their children according to their faith, and restore common sense in Maryland once again,” Morrison said in the .

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.

Local Schools, Colleges Respond to Ohio’s Bathroom Bill

Keri Johnson — Wed, 18 Dec 2024 19:30:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

ATHENS, Ohio — Local school districts and colleges are scrambling to determine how they will implement recent state legislation that requires transgender people to use the bathroom of the sex they were assigned at birth.

In late November, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law. In addition to prescribing bathroom use for all persons using school restrooms, the statute also prohibits public and private educational institutions from constructing multi-person, multi-gender restrooms.

Ohio’s law brings the number of to an even dozen.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

Legislation targeting transgender people has across the country in the past 10 years, limiting access to public restrooms and healthcare and participation in sports, among other measures. In 2024 alone, Ohio legislators — out of 14 that were introduced.

Both of Athens County’s state legislators for SB 104; Sen. Brian Chavez (R-Marietta) sponsored the bill.

As Jay Edwards (R-Nelsonville) is term-limited, of Marietta will replace him next year. In an email, Ritter said, “I appreciate Representative Edwards voting to ensure the privacy of Ohio’s students.”

The law takes effect on Feb. 24, 2025; 90 days after DeWine signed the bill on the day before Thanksgiving.

SB 104 puts school districts in a “tenuous” situation, Athens City School District Superintendent Tom Gibbs told the Independent.

“Currently, there is some disagreement between the Federal Department of Education and guidance we have been provided and what is included in this new statute,” Gibbs said in an email.

The district is consulting legal counsel about “to determine how best to move forward,” Gibbs wrote.

“District employees will be directed to continue to support and protect the rights of all students for the next 90 days while we await guidance from our legal counsel,” Gibbs said in an email.

Federal Hocking Local Schools Superintendent Jason Spencer declined to comment, saying that he had not yet discussed the bill with the Federal-Hocking Board of Education. Alexander, Nelsonville-York and Trimble local school district superintendents did not respond to requests for comments.

Potential conflict with federal law

SB 104 presents Ohio educators with a Catch-22, Gibbs explained. Employees who don’t follow the new requirements can be reported for violating state law; if they do follow it, they risk violating federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title IX.

of the Education Amendments of 1972, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in “any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Title IX “ to transgender students in public schools and universities,” Gibbs said, citing the . Athens City Schools’ Title IX coordinator is Director of Curriculum & Development Sommer McCorkle.

SB 104 does not contain any language about enforcement or penalties for violations of its restrictions. Similar bills in other states include fines and jail time as sanctions for violations, The Buckeye Flame .

Gibbs noted that the district has standing “that specifically call for protecting student rights based on gender identity.” But SB 104 will force the district to “change or modify multiple policies to be in line with the state statute,” he said.

“And, District employees will be faced with the daily task of ascertaining when to follow Federal Title IX Guidance and when to follow the State Statutes related to transgender students,” Gibbs said. “It is difficult to say on one hand that we do not discriminate based on gender identity and then on the other to limit student’s participation in athletics or even where they can use the bathroom.”

The implied changes from SB 104 are “especially frustrating because we’ve had these policies and procedures in place for years without any complaint and before this even became the Federal guidance on the matter,” Gibbs said in an email.

“The complete lack of any nod towards the ‘local control’ that state legislators frequently espouse in regards to schools and municipalities apparently goes out the window in relation to how we address and protect the rights of transgender students,” Gibbs stated.

Gibbs also pointed to ongoing Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case Doe v. Bethel, in which parents and students are suing Bethel Local School District for allowing a transgender child to use the restroom that matches her gender, the Ohio Capital Journal .

“I am hopeful that case will come to [a] conclusion soon, as it would provide some additional context to the legal landscape surrounding this issue,” Gibbs said in an email.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Education declined to comment on SB 104, but did note that federal laws supersede state laws.

Higher education

In an email, an Ohio University spokesperson said that OU “is aware that Senate Bill 104 has been formally signed into law, and we are currently reviewing the final version of the bill and its potential impact on established University processes and procedures.”

The spokesperson added, “OHIO has long been committed to fostering an inclusive, respectful environment for all students, staff and visitors, and we will continue to work to ensure that our public restroom signage and accommodations continue to meet the needs of our University community and remain compliant with all applicable state and federal laws.”

Casey Plett, an assistant professor of English and film at OU, said the university has not yet provided her with any guidance regarding the new law.

“Anecdotally, from what I can see … it is increasing stress levels,” Plett said of her students. “I would worry very much about students who might be in the closet, who … might keep their identities secret … or keep their gender secret because of this, which is just a shame, and something that most other students don’t have to do.”

For Plett, the “” nature of anti-trans bathroom bills is not founded in reality.

“The opponents of trans youth, specifically, in public life — it’s always called an ‘experience of experimentation,’ and that is not true,” Plett said. “I think that it is bills like this that are the experimentation … It is making these kinds of draconian laws that — none of these laws existed four years ago. It is this kind of legislative activity that is the experiment, and I am very doubtful it was going to have good effects.”

Ohio University senior Rey De Spain, who is transgender, echoed Plett’s sentiments.

“I think it’s a massive overreach into the private lives of citizens and especially students,” they said.

De Spain said that in Athens, “I’ve never really encountered any problems using the public restrooms here.” However, since their freshman year, “I definitely think that transphobia has become a lot more visible.”

In De Spain’s experience, “People are a lot more comfortable being openly transphobic … A lot of people feel more comfortable than I would like, verbally harassing others on the streets, especially when they’re drunk … I expect a little bit of that, but I do feel like this campus has become a lot less friendly already in the past couple years, when I compare it to my freshman year. I felt like it was an extremely safe place, and I was never really hassled.”

Overall, though, De Spain said they feel “very fortunate that I live in an area where people mostly mind their own business.”

De Spain believes that bathrooms already operate on a “good faith” system in which legal documents aren’t required to attend to bodily functions.

“What all of us want in the bathroom is privacy, and a place to do our business and then wash our hands and leave,” De Spain said. “I think that a lot of the people pushing legislation like this don’t seem to understand how public restrooms function in the real world, and they think they’re protecting people, when really they’re putting people in danger.”

Hocking College Vice President of Student Affairs Hannah Guadda, who is the school’s coordinator, said in an email the institution “is currently reviewing the legislation to ensure compliance while maintaining our commitment to a safe, inclusive environment for all students. As we assess the bill’s impact, we remain dedicated to supporting our diverse student body.”

Resources: LGBTQ+ youths in crisis may contact the Trevor Project at 866-4-U-Trevor for assistance; adults in crisis, contact the National Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860. The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is also available; in case of emergency, always call 911.

This was originally published on .

Opinion: 6 of 8 Ivy Leagues Will Soon Have Women as Presidents — Here’s Why This Matters

Felecia Commodore — Thu, 18 May 2023 16:30:16 +0000

This article was originally published in

For the first time, a majority of Ivy League schools will soon be led by women.

Starting July 1, 2023, will assume the role of president at Harvard University, at Columbia University and at Dartmouth College. They will join current female presidents at Brown University, Cornell University and University of Pennsylvania.

, an associate professor of higher education at Old Dominion University, explains what this means for gender equity in the college presidency – and why U.S. colleges and universities still have a long way to go.

Why does this matter?

While women make up about as well as in the U.S., only about of American colleges and universities are women.

However, the Ivy League is not new to selecting female presidents – they have been doing so for a few decades. Judith Rodin was the first, in 1994, when she became president of the University of Pennsylvania. She was followed by and , both in 2001. Rodin was succeeded by another woman, , in 2004.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

Still, one reason this moment may be one to watch is that Ivy League institutions are often seen as exemplars of elite, complex institutions. So seeing what one could consider a critical mass of female leaders in the Ivy League could signal the benefit of women in leadership to other boards that are hesitant or slow to hire women as presidents.

How unusual is this across higher ed?

I think it would be more surprising to see mostly female presidents at the majority of large public research universities, or at a majority of the schools in the .

Despite what may seem like a boom in women leading institutions, the percentage of women in the presidency at colleges and universities more broadly has plateaued at for the past decade. This was after increasing from to .

A number of factors contribute to this low percentage, including – such as exclusion from networks that provide mentorship – reward and that are not equitable across genders, and .

A recent analysis of explains how this bias against women occurs, specifically when it comes to academic leadership roles. This is important because college presidents typically through such as deans, vice provosts and provosts.

Judith Rodin, right, former president of University of Pennsylvania, and Valerie Jarrett, former senior adviser in the Obama administration, discuss gender parity in the C-suite in 2016. (Getty Images)

What are the biggest challenges that college presidents face?

The biggest priority or challenge really depends on the individual college or university. However, all institutions must ensure they are financially healthy and identify opportunities to strengthen their financial resources. College presidents have reported that they spend the most time on , followed by fundraising.

Particularly in the current , where the average cost of college runs , college leaders must work to keep their institutions fiscally strong and also competitive and affordable. This may involve, for example, , creating new programs and cultivating new sources of funding.

What effect does having a woman in the top seat have?

For colleges that have only ever had a man in the president’s role, hiring their first woman as president can signal that the institution embraces change and evolution. This can be an especially important message to send to funders, alumni donors, philanthropists, state legislators and corporate partners, who all play a role in ensuring a particular college’s financial vitality.

Female presidents add to the diversity of the college presidency. They to conversations that shape practices and policies both within their college and across higher education. They might, for example, provide their particular perspective regarding compensation for female faculty members of color, who tend to on campuses.

Organizational scholars and business leaders affirm that made by organizations and . A more diverse group of decision-makers can generate than a homogeneous group that may be susceptible to group think.

And lastly, having women at the helm of academic institutions that it is indeed possible.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

gender equity – ��������

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Montgomery Parents’ Challenge to LGBTQ+ Book Rules

Local Schools, Colleges Respond to Ohio’s Bathroom Bill

Potential conflict with federal law

Higher education

Opinion: 6 of 8 Ivy Leagues Will Soon Have Women as Presidents — Here’s Why This Matters

Why does this matter?

How unusual is this across higher ed?

What are the biggest challenges that college presidents face?

What effect does having a woman in the top seat have?

gender equity – ��