ReportWire

Tag: Title IX

  • Cleveland Heights School District Failed to Address Student Sexual Harassment and Assault Incidents, Lawsuit Claims

    Cleveland Heights School District Failed to Address Student Sexual Harassment and Assault Incidents, Lawsuit Claims

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Cleveland Heights-University Heights

    Roxboro Middle School, shown here in an undated photo, was a site of one of several Title IX cases included in a lawsuit against the district on Wednesday.

    Superintendents, principals and student coordinators at the Cleveland Heights-University Heights School District failed to handle multiple instances of sexual harassment and assaults going back at least 14 years, a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday afternoon alleges.

    The complaint, filed in the Northern District of Ohio Court by parents of students and former students who are now adults, accuses the district and employees of Fairfax Elementary, Roxboro Middle School and Cleveland Heights High of ignoring clear violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal statute that protects students from any major discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.

    CHUH and the nine other defendants listed “failed to take prompt and effective steps to end the harassment and assaults,” the complaint reads, “once notice of the misconduct had become sufficiently severe.”

    The allegations, compiled over the past year by attorneys Eric Long, Karen Truszkowski and Antoinette Frazho in the 36-page suit, cover a wide range of sexual misbehavior by male teenagers that were, lawyers say, mismanaged by a string of teachers and principals.

    At least five former female students, titled as Jane Does 1 through 5 due to them being minors at the time, are involved. In one incident, a Heights High freshman was raped by a member of the varsity soccer team, and was later denied a transfer to a separate building after admins chose not to punish the assailant, the lawsuit alleges. In another, a mother named “E.K.” was unable to pull her daughter out of a kindergarten class at Fairfax Elementary after a boy placed “his hand up her shirt and down her pants.”

    And in one of the extreme cases, an 11-year-old girl was allegedly assaulted by an eighth grader in a production closet behind the Roxboro Elementary Auditorium. She was, the complaint claims, later coerced by a Roxboro counselor into admitting the closet sex was “consensual.”

    “At the time, Jane Doe 1 was 11 years old, and did not know what ‘consensual’ meant,” the lawsuit reads, “nor did she have the legal ability to ‘consent’ to sexual contact.” Though the boy had charges brought against him eventually, the girl was initially suspended for “engaging in sexual conduct while on school property.”

    In an interview Wednesday, Long told Scene that he and the plaintiffs had waited so long to file—about a year—due to the nature of formulating a sound Title IX case, along with the obvious sensitivities that go into matters of sexual assault.

    “I think part of that answer is that it takes time to realize that you’re not the only one. Right?” he said. “When we’re talking about systemic problems and actively trying to avoid doing what needs to be done under the law, it takes time for this stuff to come forward.”

    Long said that he and his team had attempted to mediate a settlement outside of court with CHUH’s legal team but those talks had failed. He declined to reveal the dollar amount the litigants were seeking.

    The suit filed brings ten counts of charges against the district, from three involving the Title IX sex discriminatio, to those of negligent hiring, retention and supervision of school staff. But the bulk of the claims, Long said, are straight-forward: CHUH failed to protect at least five female students from assault “because of their gender.”

    Which, to Long, is a relatively unique case in Northeast Ohio courts.

    “I’m not aware of kind of a multi plaintiff case that kind of fits the same pattern where over a course of a decade plus, the school has continuously failed to take the steps they need to take under Title IX,” he said. “So I think this is somewhat unique in that way. But I would venture to guess this will not be the last case like that.”

    In a statement to Scene, Elizabeth Kirby, CHUH’s superintendent, backed up the school system’s ability to both handle Title IX issues and prevent them.

    CHUH, after all, she said, has a “full-time Title IX Coordinator” to provide “education sessions” to students; teachers and staff regularly attend Title IX seminars; and, following a particular case in 2022, the school beefed up its support staff to combat sexual harassment.

    “We take all allegations of this nature seriously, including the District’s obligations to report and investigate,” Kirby wrote in a statement. “We are aware that a number of parents are dissatisfied with the District’s Title IX response. We respect their right to voice their opinion.”

    CHUH and their legal team have 60 days to respond to the complaint.

    Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Mark Oprea

    Source link

  • NC school district removed books featuring gay parents. It now faces federal complaint.

    NC school district removed books featuring gay parents. It now faces federal complaint.

    [ad_1]

    Moore County school board members David Hensley and Robert Levy at a April 2023 meeting where they adopted a local “Parents’ Bill of Rights” policy. That policy is now being challenged in a federal Title IX complaint.

    Moore County school board members David Hensley and Robert Levy at a April 2023 meeting where they adopted a local “Parents’ Bill of Rights” policy. That policy is now being challenged in a federal Title IX complaint.

    ABC!1

    A North Carolina school district is facing a federal civil rights complaint after it ordered books featuring homosexual parents to be removed from elementary schools.

    In April 2023, the Moore County school board adopted a local version of what would become North Carolina’s “Parents’ Bill of Rights” law that limits discussion on gender identity and sexuality in elementary schools. On Tuesday, the Southern Pines chapter of PFLAG and Public School Advocates filed a Title IX complaint accusing Moore County of discriminating against LGBTQ families by removing materials featuring same-sex parents.

    “We raise this issue in an effort to protect the LGBTQ+ community, including faculty, students, and their families, from Moore County Schools’ harmful and outright discriminatory policies and guidelines,” said the complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights

    A spokesperson from the Moore County school system did not return The News & Observer’s request for comment on Tuesday. Moore County is about 70 miles southwest of Raleigh.

    Moore County should be free to decide what books to use without worrying about federal interference, said Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the N.C. Values Coalition, which backed the statewide Parents’ Bill of Rights law.

    “I believe that county school systems have the legal right under state law to decide what kind of topics and programs they want their children to learn,” Fitzgerald said in an interview Tuesday. “That’s a concept we’ve had in our state for hundreds of years: local control.”

    The state’s Parents’ Bill of Rights law is facing a similar federal Title IX complaint filed by the Asheville-based Campaign for Southern Equality. They’re among the groups who filed a Title IX complaint against the Buncombe County school system for following the Parents’ Bill of Rights.

    Removing books with homosexual parents

    The Moore County school board adopted Parents’ Bill of Rights policies ahead of the Republican-led General Assembly making it a state law. Like the state law, Moore County requires parents to be notified if their child wants to use a different pronoun or name.

    The new state law also bans instruction in the curriculum on sexuality, sexual activity or gender identity in kindergarten through fourth-grade classrooms. The district policy uses slightly different wording.

    Moore County’s policy says instruction on sexual activity or sexuality will not be included in the K-4 curriculum. The policy also says “the subject of gender identify and gender fluidity shall not be taught in Moore County Schools.”

    Moore County school board members David Hensley and Robert Levy at a April 2023 meeting where they adopted a local “Parents’ Bill of Rights” policy. That policy is now being challenged in a federal Title IX complaint.
    Moore County school board members David Hensley and Robert Levy at a April 2023 meeting where they adopted a local “Parents’ Bill of Rights” policy. That policy is now being challenged in a federal Title IX complaint. ABC!1

    To help implement the local policies and state law, the district provided principals an implementation guide.

    “Principals will need teachers to record any additional materials, including books that are added to their classrooms (not to include district materials) and remove any books that discuss/share a person’s sexual activity, sexuality or gender identity,” according to the implementation guide. “For example, a book with homosexual parents or a student questioning their gender.”

    PFLAG says singling out books with homosexual parents violates Title IX and goes beyond what’s required in state law. The group wants a list of the books that have been removed.

    “Implementing policies and practices that favor heterosexuality and cisgender identities equates to preferential treatment based on gender identity and sexual orientation, which is prohibited under Title IX,” according to an April letter from PFLAG and Public School Advocates to the district.

    New federal Title IX regulations

    Both groups are relying on the Biden Administration’s interpretation of Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sexual discrimination in institutions receiving federal education funding.

    The Biden Administration included banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to recently released final Title IX regulations. Supporters of the new guidelines say it will help protect the rights of LGBTQ students.

    Officials from nearly two dozen GOP-led states have voiced their opposition to the Title IX regulations, United Press International reported. Multiple states have filed lawsuits, while state leaders like Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, both Republicans, said their states will not comply.

    “Congress never interpreted sex to include sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Fitzgerald of the N.C. Values Coalition. “These new rules are counter to the purpose of Title IX as adopted by Congress.”

    Related stories from Charlotte Observer

    T. Keung Hui has covered K-12 education for the News & Observer since 1999, helping parents, students, school employees and the community understand the vital role education plays in North Carolina. His primary focus is Wake County, but he also covers statewide education issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Virginia attorney general joins efforts to fight back against Title IX changes – WTOP News

    Virginia attorney general joins efforts to fight back against Title IX changes – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    The list of new rules designed to protect victims of campus sexual assaults and the rights of LGBTQ+ students has come under attack by Republican attorneys general in several states.

    This article was reprinted with permission from Virginia Mercury

    Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares has joined a multi-state effort to stop new Title IX rules from going into effect.

    The list of new rules designed to protect victims of campus sexual assaults and the rights of LGBTQ+ students has come under attack by Republican attorneys general in several states.

    Miyares called the changes a “dangerous overhaul” of Title IX, and said the new rules would negatively impact students, families and schools in the commonwealth. The ruling also comes after Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration overhauled the commonwealth’s transgender student policies.

    “The Biden Administration’s unlawful rule would jeopardize half a century of landmark protections for women, forcing the administration’s social agenda onto the states by holding federal funding hostage,” Miyares said in a statement. “They are avoiding Congress and the constitutional process because they know it will not pass. We cannot roll back Title IX in the name of false equity.”

    Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares at the Virginia State Capitol on Jan. 10. (Nathaniel Cline/Virginia Mercury)

    Attorney generals from Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia have also signed onto the suit, which was filed in Tennessee. Separate lawsuits have been filed in other states, including Louisiana and Texas.

    Title IX, which has undergone several transformations based on the political party in office, was created to address women’s rights and prohibits any federally funded school or education program from discriminating against any student based on sex since it was established in 1972.

    The Department of Education said some differences compared to the previous version developed under the Trump administration, include protections against all sex-based harassment and discrimination, prohibits schools from sharing personal information and supports students and families.

    Narissa Rahaman, executive director for Equality Virginia, said in a statement that the rule prevents opponents from weakening “crucial” civil rights protections including for LGBTQ+ students by ensuring that pregnant and parenting students have a right to equal education opportunities, protecting student survivors and guaranteeing the rights of LGBTQ+ students to come to school as themselves without fear of harassment or discrimination.

    “Students across races, places, and genders prove every day that they can do great things, especially when there are strong Title IX protections in place, which is why the Biden Administration’s updates to the Title IX rules are essential to ensure every student can thrive at school,” said Rahaman.

    The new rule is slated to take effect on Aug. 1 and will apply to complaints of alleged conduct that occurs on or after that date, according to the Department of Education.

    Protections

    While the ruling protects students and employees from all sex-based harassment and discrimination, it will also impact LGBTQ+ students and employees, including providing complete protection from sex-based harassment and prohibiting schools from sharing personal information.

    Schools must act “promptly and effectively” to protect and treat all students and staff who make complaints “equitably.” Schools must also provide support measures to complainants and respondents, and act to end any sex discrimination in their programs and prevent any recurrence.

    The rule further clarifies the definition of “sex-based harassment,” which means to treat someone unfairly because of their gender; and the scope of sex discrimination, including schools’ obligations not to discriminate based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

    The federal agency said the changes will empower and support students and families by requiring schools to disclose their nondiscrimination policies and procedures to all students, employees, and other participants in their education programs so that students and families understand their rights.

    The final rule also protects against retaliation for students, employees, and others who exercise their Title IX rights, and supports the rights of parents and guardians to act on behalf of their elementary school and secondary school children.

    The rule also protects student privacy by prohibiting schools from disclosing personally identifiable information with limited exceptions, which is something the Youngkin administration has opposed.

    Advocates say one of the rights students should have is the power to decide who finds out about their transgender status, to protect them from being bullied or harassed.

    Virginia policies

    In 2021, the first model policies for transgender students were designed under former Gov. Ralph Northam to provide school officials guidance on the treatment of transgender and nonbinary students and to protect the privacy and rights of these students.

    However, some schools declined to adopt the model policies, and the state law that led to them lacked enforcement incentives or penalties.

    The current policies adopted by the Youngkin administration were revised to require parental approval for any changes to students’ “names, nicknames, and/or pronouns,” direct schools to keep parents “informed about their children’s well-being” and require that student participation in activities and athletics and use of bathrooms be based on sex, “except to the extent that federal law otherwise requires.”

    Virginia schools have also not fully adopted the newly revised policies, and state law has not changed since the policies were overhauled in 2023.

    The Virginia Department of Education faces two lawsuits over the policies adopted by the Youngkin administration.

    “All Virginia students, including our transgender and non-binary students deserve to feel safe and welcomed at schools,” said Wyatt Rolla, a senior transgender rights attorney with the ACLU of Virginia. “Accessing restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities that are necessary when you are at school learning is a key part of our schools being inclusive of those transgender [and] non binary students that are part of our community.”

    Athletics not included

    The provisions under the new Title IX rule did not mention anything about requiring schools to allow transgender students to play on teams that align with their gender identity. Virginia has taken its own shot at banning transgender athletes from competing in sports through legislation.

    In February, the Youngkin administration attempted to challenge the Virginia High School League’s policy on transgender athletes, the Daily Progress reported.

    The proposed policy would have matched with the administration’s current policies that students should be placed on teams based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity.

    The Virginia High School League, which oversees interscholastic athletic competition for Virginia’s public high schools, allows for transgender athletes to participate on teams that match their gender identity, but under certain conditions.

    Simultaneously, lawmakers in the Virginia General Assembly controlled by Democrats killed bills, including Senate Bill 68, during the previous session that would have essentially banned transgender students from competing in sports.

    Sen. Tammy Brankley Mulchi, R-Mecklenburg, who carried Senate Bill 723, said students like her 6-year-old granddaughter should have a choice to play with their own gender during a Feb. 1 Senate Education subcommittee hearing.

    Mulchi’s bill would have required schools and colleges to have separate sports for boys and girls based on their biological sex. Any dispute would require a note from a doctor.

    “If she [my granddaughter] wants to play an all-girl sport, I want her to play against girls that were born girls and not play against someone that is much stronger than her or can hurt her and take away her chances of a scholarship,” Mulchi said.

    However, Sen. Stella Pekarsky, D-Fairfax, argued during the February hearing that whether students are competing with their respective biological sex or not “children of all ages, sexes have different builds and strengths and no children are alike on the same team.”

    [ad_2]

    Ivy Lyons

    Source link

  • Gov. Greg Abbott Says Texas Education Agency Will Ignore Title IX Revisions

    Gov. Greg Abbott Says Texas Education Agency Will Ignore Title IX Revisions

    [ad_1]

    Dear HuffPost Reader

    Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

    The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

    Dear HuffPost Reader

    Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

    The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wisconsin Gov. Evers vetoes transgender high school athletics ban, decries

    Wisconsin Gov. Evers vetoes transgender high school athletics ban, decries

    [ad_1]

    Talking Points: Minnesota is now safe haven for transgender community (Part 1)


    Talking Points: Minnesota is now safe haven for transgender community (Part 1)

    12:05

    Wisconsin’s governor vetoed a bill Tuesday that would have banned high school transgender athletes from competing on teams that align with their gender identity, promising he would veto “any bill that makes Wisconsin a less safe, less inclusive, and less welcoming place for LGBTQ people and kids.”

    The bill had passed the Republican-controlled Legislature despite Evers vowing he would veto it from the moment it was introduced. While Democrats did not have the votes to stop its passage in the Legislature, now Republicans don’t have the votes needed to override the veto.

    Evers said in his veto message that this type of legislation “harms LGBTQ Wisconsinites’ and kids’ mental health, emboldens anti-LGBTQ harassment, bullying, and violence, and threatens the safety and dignity of LGBTQ Wisconsinites, especially our LGBTQ kids.”

    Evers vetoed it in the Capitol surrounded by Democratic lawmakers, transgender advocates, the mayor of Madison and others.

    Republican Rep. Barb Dittrich, who sponsored the bill, called Evers’ veto “disgusting” and accused him of “misogynistic and hateful position towards actual females.”

    “His veto today clearly demonstrates his disrespect for women and girls as well as for protecting their hard-fought achievements,” Dittrich said in a statement.

    The bill proposed to limit high school athletes to playing on teams that match the gender they were assigned at birth.

    Republicans who backed the bill argued it was a matter of fairness for non-transgender athletes. But bill opponents argued there was no real issue with transgender high school athletes in Wisconsin and said the proposed ban was a form of discrimination and harmful to transgender youth.

    The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association requires transgender athletes to undergo hormone therapy before they can play on the teams of their choice. The association’s policy is modeled after NCAA requirements for transgender athletes.

    At least 20 states have approved a version of a blanket ban on transgender athletes playing on K-12 and collegiate sports teams statewide, but a Biden administration proposal to forbid such outright bans is set to be finalized this year after multiple delays and much pushback. As proposed, the rule would establish that blanket bans would violate Title IX, the landmark gender-equity legislation enacted in 1972.

    Neighboring Minnesota has recently passed a number of bills that proponents say make it a refuge state for LGBTQ+ youth, including a bill banning conversion therapy. Additionally, Minnesota lawmakers recently passed legislation that aimed to make Minnesota a “refuge” for transgender persons in general. Those pushing the legislation forward said it would protect trans patients and providers of gender-affirming care from legal action in other states where such care is banned or restricted, creating a safe haven in Minnesota.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Discrimination lawsuit brought by transgender athlete sent back to Minnesota trial court

    Discrimination lawsuit brought by transgender athlete sent back to Minnesota trial court

    [ad_1]

    A Minnesota appeals court has sent the lawsuit brought by a transgender athlete back to a trial court to determine whether she was illegally denied entry into women’s competitions because of her gender identity.

    JayCee Cooper, a transgender woman, sued USA Powerlifting in 2021 after the organization denied her 2018 request for participation. She alleged the organization violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act, an anti-discrimination law which includes gender identity.

    Last year, a district court judge found that USA Powerlifting had discriminated against Cooper. USA Powerlifting appealed, and Cooper cross-appealed. In its lengthy Monday decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, reversed and sent back parts of the case.

    Judge Matthew Johnson wrote: “The circumstantial evidence on which Cooper relies, when viewed in a light most favorable to her, is sufficient to allow a fact-finder to draw inferences and thereby find that USAPL excluded Cooper from its competitions because of her sexual orientation (i.e., transgender status).”

    Gender Justice Legal Director Jess Braverman, an attorney for Cooper, said, “We agree that it’s illegal to discriminate against transgender people in Minnesota, but we think it’s crystal clear that that’s what USA Powerlifting did in this case, so we don’t agree with the court’s ultimate conclusion that the case needs to go back for a trial, and we’re currently weighing all of our options.”

    Cooper could ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision, or go back to the lower court to keep litigating the case, Braverman said.

    Ansis Viksnins, USA Powerlifting’s lead attorney, welcomed the decision as having “corrected some of the mistakes” made by the lower court and has given their side an opportunity “to tell our side of the story” to a jury.

    “USA Powerlifting did not exclude Ms. Cooper because of her gender identity,” Viksnins said. “USA Powerlifting excluded her from competing in the women’s division because of her physiology. She was born biologically male and went through puberty as a male, and as a result, she has significant strength advantages over other people who would be competing in the women’s division.”

    Cooper asked USA Powerlifting for a “therapeutic-use exemption” to take spironolactone, a medicine prescribed to treat her gender dysphoria, “but JayCee was denied because she’s transgender,” Braverman said.

    She filed a complaint in 2019 with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, but withdrew it before reaching a decision. The department filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit in support of Cooper, Braverman said.

    In schools and private clubs across the country, transgender people’s participation in sports has become a contentious issue. Many Republican-led states have banned transgender people from participating in high school and collegiate sports.

    Last week, a group of college athletes, including swimmer Riley Gaines, sued the NCAA, alleging the organization violated their Title IX rights by allowing Lia Thomas, who is a transgender woman, to compete in the 2022 national championships.

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

  • Ban on gender-affirming care for minors takes effect in North Carolina after veto override

    Ban on gender-affirming care for minors takes effect in North Carolina after veto override

    [ad_1]

    Transgender youth in North Carolina on Wednesday lost access to the gender-affirming treatments many credit as live-saving after the Republican-controlled General Assembly overrode the Democratic governor’s veto of that legislation and others touching on gender in sports and classroom instruction.

    GOP supermajorities in the House and Senate enacted —over Gov. Roy Cooper’s opposition— a bill barring medical professionals from providing hormone therapy, puberty-blocking drugs and surgical gender-transition procedures to anyone under 18, with limited medical exceptions.

    The policy takes effect immediately, but minors who had begun treatment before Aug. 1 may continue receiving that care if their doctors deem it medically necessary and their parents consent.

    North Carolina becomes the 22nd state to enact legislation restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for trans minors. But most of those laws face legal challenges, and local LGBTQ+ right advocates have vowed to challenge the ban in court.

    The Senate voted 27-18 to complete the veto override after an earlier House vote, 73-46.

    US-NEWS-NC-ABORTION-RA
    North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper.

    Raleigh News & Observer


    Democratic Sen. Lisa Grafstein, North Carolina’s only out LGBTQ+ state senator, said the gender-affirming care bill “may be the most heartbreaking bill in a truly heartbreaking session.”

    Some LGBTQ+ rights advocates in the Senate gallery began yelling after Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, who was presiding, cut off Grafstein to let another lawmaker speak. Several people were then escorted from the chamber by capitol police.

    Sen. Joyce Krawiec, a Forsyth County Republican and chief sponsor of the bill restricting gender-affirming care, said the state has a responsibility to protect children from receiving potentially irreversible procedures before they are old enough to make their own informed medical decisions.

    Earlier, the Senate and House voted minutes apart to override another Cooper veto of a bill limiting LGBTQ+ instruction in the early grades, also making that law.

    That law requires public school teachers in most circumstances to alert parents before they call a student by a different name or pronoun. And the law also bans instruction about gender identity and sexuality in K-4 classrooms, which critics have previously likened to a Florida law opponents call “Don’t Say Gay.”

    Both chambers also voted Wednesday to override Cooper’s veto of another bill banning transgender girls from playing on girls’ sports teams from middle and high school through college. It, too, immediately became law.

    A day of divisive deliberations saw anger and emotion at times in the assembly.

    Democratic state Rep. John Autry of Mecklenburg County, who has a transgender grandchild, choked up while debating the gender-affirming care bill on the House floor. “Just stop it,” he begged his Republican colleagues shortly before they voted to enact the law.

    And Cooper blasted the decisions of the Republican-controlled chambers in a blistering statement, calling them “wrong priorities” even before lawmakers had completed all their votes.

    “The legislature finally comes back to pass legislation that discriminates,” he said, adding it would have several negative impacts for North Carolina. “Yet they still won’t pass a budget when teachers, school bus drivers and Medicaid Expansion for thousands of working people getting kicked off their health plans every week are desperately needed.”

    Parents of transgender and nonbinary children, like Elizabeth Waugh of Orange County, said hours before the voting started that they have been considering whether to move their families out of North Carolina so their children will have unrestricted access to gender-affirming care.

    Waugh’s nonbinary child did not begin receiving treatment before Aug. 1 and would need to travel elsewhere if they decide they want to start taking hormones.

    “I have felt like I had a lump in my throat for months,” Waugh said. “Just talking to other families who are dealing with this, I mean, the pain that they are feeling, the suffering, the fear for their children —it’s devastating.”

    Gender-affirming care is considered safe and medically necessary by the leading professional health associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the Endocrine Society. While trans minors very rarely receive surgical interventions, they are commonly prescribed drugs to delay puberty and sometimes begin taking hormones before they reach adulthood.

    The House kicked off the day’s rush of votes with a 74-45 vote to override Cooper’s veto of a bill that would prohibit transgender girls from playing on girls’ middle school, high school and college sports teams. The Senate completed the override soon after.

    A former Olympic swimmer, Rep. Marcia Morey, had spoken in House floor debate before the vote about possible repercussions for young athletes.

    “This bill affects 10-, 11-, 12-year-olds who are just starting to learn about athletics, about competition, about sportsmanship,” Morey, a Durham County Democrat, said. “To some of these kids, it could be their lifeline to self-confidence.”

    Critics have said limits on transgender girls’ participation in sports are discriminatory and have called it a measure disguised as a safety precaution that would unfairly pick on a small number of students.

    But such supporters of the bill as Payton McNabb, a recent high school graduate from Murphy, argued that legislation is needed to protect the safety and well-being of young female athletes and to preserve scholarship opportunities for them.

    “The veto of this bill was not only a veto on women’s rights, but a slap in the face to every female in the state,” said McNabb, who says she suffered a concussion and neck injury last year after a transgender athlete hit her in the head with a volleyball during a school match.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Oklahoma governor signs gender-affirming care ban for kids

    Oklahoma governor signs gender-affirming care ban for kids

    [ad_1]

    Oklahoma on Monday became the latest state to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors as Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill that makes it a felony for healthcare workers to provide children with treatments that can include puberty-blocking drugs and hormones.

    Oklahoma joins at least 15 other states with laws banning such care, as conservatives across the country have targeted transgender rights.

    Stitt, who was reelected in November, made the ban a priority of this year’s legislative session, saying he wanted to protect children. Transgender advocates and parents of transgender children say such care is essential.

    Stitt signed bills last year that prohibit transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams and prevent transgender children from using school bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

    “Last year, I called for a statewide ban on all irreversible gender transition surgeries and hormone therapies on minors so I am thrilled to sign this into law today and protect our kids,” Stitt said in a statement released after the signing. “We cannot turn a blind eye to what’s happening across our nation, and as governor I am proud to stand up for what’s right and ban life-altering transition surgeries on children in the state of Oklahoma.”

    The bill Stitt signed on Monday makes it illegal to provide gender-transition medical care for anyone under the age of 18. Such treatment can include surgery as well as hormones and drugs that suppress or delay normal puberty.

    Transgender advocates and parents of transgender children say such care is essential.

    Several civil liberty organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, has promised to “take any necessary legal action” to prevent the law from taking effect.

    “Gender-affirming care is a critical part of helping transgender adolescents succeed, establish healthy relationships with their friends and family, live authentically as themselves, and dream about their futures,” Lambda Legal, the ACLU and the ACLU said in a joint statement.

    At least 16 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota and West Virginia. Federal judges have blocked the enforcement of laws in Alabama and Arkansas, and nearly two dozen states are considering bills this year to restrict or ban care.

    Three states — Florida, Missouri and Texas — have banned or restricted the care via regulations or administrative orders and Missouri’s is the only one that also limits the treatments for adults. A judge has blocked Missouri’s restrictions. Texas’ governor has ordered child welfare officials to investigate reports of children receiving such care as child abuse, though a judge has blocked those investigations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bud Light fumbles, but inclusive advertising is here to stay

    Bud Light fumbles, but inclusive advertising is here to stay

    [ad_1]

    Bud Light may have fumbled its attempt to broaden its customer base by partnering with a transgender influencer. But experts say inclusive marketing is simply good business — and it’s here to stay.

    “A few years from now, we will look back on this ‘controversy’ with the same embarrassment that we feel when we look back at ‘controversies’ from the past surrounding things like interracial couples in advertising,” said Sarah Reynolds, the chief marketing officer for the human resources platform HiBob, who identifies as queer.

    On April 1, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney posted a video of herself cracking open a Bud Light on her Instagram page. She showed off a can with her face on it that Bud Light had sent her — one of many corporate freebies she gets and shares with her millions of followers.

    But unlike past items gifted her, like a dress from Rent the Runway or a trip to Denmark from skincare brand Ole Henriksen, the backlash to the beer can was fast and furious. Two days after Mulvaney’s post, Kid Rock posted a video of himself shooting cases of Bud Light. Shares of Bud Light’s parent, AB InBev, temporarily plunged.

    This week, Anheuser-Busch — AB InBev’s U.S. subsidiary — confirmed that Alissa Heinerscheid, its vice president of marketing, and her boss, Daniel Blake, are taking a leave of absence. The company won’t say when they will return or whether they’re being paid.


    Budweiser releases new ad amid backlash over partnership with Dylan Mulvaney

    06:39

    “Just make beer”

    For some, the partnership went too far at a time when transgender issues — including gender-affirming health care and participation in sports — are a divisive topic in state legislatures.

    “Whether the issue is trans people or anything else, the majority of consumers are pretty vocal about the fact they don’t want brands lecturing them or stuffing politics or social issues down their throat,” said John Frigo, the head of digital marketing for Best Price Nutrition. “If you sell beer, just make beer and leave it at that.”

    But others — including Heinerscheid herself — say reaching out to younger and more diverse consumers is crucial. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 21% of people in Generation Z identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, compared to 3% of Baby Boomers. Gallup has also found that younger consumers are the most likely to want brands to promote diversity and take a stand on social issues.

    “I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light. And it was, this brand is in decline. It’s been in decline for a very long time. And if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light,” Heinerscheid said last month in an episode of Apple’s “Make Yourself at Home” podcast.

    Bud Light and Mulvaney declined requests to talk to The Associated Press for this story.

    Rapid decline in sales following controversy

    Bud Light has long been America’s best-selling beer. But its U.S. sales are down 2% so far this year, part of a long-running decline as younger consumers flock to sparking seltzers and other drinks, according to Bump Williams Consulting. Those sales declines accelerated rapidly in April. The week ending April 15, Bud Light’s sales dropped 17% compared to the same week a year ago. Meanwhile, rivals Miller Lite and Coors Lite both saw their sales jump more than 17%.

    Marketing experts say it’s possible Bud Light’s experience will cause other brands to rethink using transgender people in their advertising. Joanna Schwartz, a professor at Georgia College and State University who teaches a course on LGBTQ+ marketing, said companies will still want to reach transgender consumers and their supporters, but might shift to social media and more targeted ads.

    “They’re walking an extremely fine line. They want to appeal to everyone, but that includes people who don’t like each other,” Schwartz said of Bud Light.

    Successful ads featuring inclusivity

    Still, Schwartz said, there are plenty of brands that have successfully featured transgender or nonbinary people in their marketing. In 2016, Secret deodorant ran an ad featuring a transgender woman in a bathroom stall, debating whether to walk out and face other women at the sink. Pantene shampoo has run ads and short films supporting transgender people in 2021 as part of its Hair Has No Gender project. And Coca-Cola’s 2018 Super Bowl ad featured young people using different pronouns to describe themselves.

    Thomas Murphy, an associate professor of branding at Clark University, said he tells brands that want to be inclusive to run ads with real people who can talk about the company’s efforts.

    “They can have employees who say, ‘I love Bud Light. I have worked here for 20 years, there are inclusive programs and I came here because I wanted a company that would embrace me,’” he said. “Who couldn’t see and hear that person and say, ‘What a great company’?”

    Both sides alienated

    Instead, Bud Light wound up alienating even transgender customers because it didn’t support Mulvaney after the boycott calls began, Schwartz said. Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a statement on April 14 but it didn’t specifically mention the controversy.

    “We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people,” Whitworth said.

    By comparison, Nike — which also faced some boycott threats after sending workout clothes to Mulvaney — supported the transgender community in an Instagram post, encouraging followers to be kind and inclusive. Nike didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    Manveer Mann, an associate professor of marketing at the Feliciano School of Business at Montclair State University, said Bud Light should have anticipated the backlash and had a plan in place to handle it.

    Nike learned that lesson in 2018, when it featured football player Colin Kaepernick — who had protested police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem — in its ads. Mann said Nike briefly faced boycott threats, but it stood by Kaepernick and its sales quickly recovered.

    Mann thinks Bud Light’s sales will ultimately recover, too. But in the meantime, it’s alienating everyone, she said.

    “The communication from Bud Light is not clear. Is this coming from your value set or are these things just trending?” Mann said. “You have to know what your values are and what are the values of the customers you are trying to reach.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House passes GOP bill to bar trans athletes on girls and women’s teams

    House passes GOP bill to bar trans athletes on girls and women’s teams

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The Republican-led House passed a bill Thursday that would bar schools and colleges that receive federal money from allowing transgender athletes whose biological sex assigned at birth was male to compete on girls or women’s sports teams or athletic events.

    The legislation, known as the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, was approved by a party-line vote of 219 to 203. It’s unlikely to advance further, since the Democratic-led Senate will not support it and the White House said President Biden would veto it.

    Supporters said the legislation, which would put violators at risk of losing taxpayer dollars, is necessary to ensure competitive fairness. They framed the vote as supporting female athletes disadvantaged by having to compete against those whose gender identify does not match their sex assigned at birth. Opponents criticized the bill as ostracizing an already vulnerable group for political gain.

    The House action comes as at least 20 other states have imposed similar limits on trans athletes at the K-12 or collegiate level.

    The bill would amend landmark civil rights legislation passed more than 50 years ago to prohibit recipients of federal money from permitting a person “whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.” The bill defines sex as “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

    The sponsor, GOP Rep. Greg Steube of Florida, highlighted the case of Emma Weyant, a resident of his district and a 2020 member of the U.S. Olympic swimming team who finished second in the NCAA women’s 500-yard freestyle championship last year. She was defeated by Lia Thomas, who had competed for three years on the University of Pennsylvania men’s swimming team before joining the women’s team.

    “The integrity of women’s sports must be protected,” Steube said.

    Rep. Aaron Bean, a Republican of Florida, said that every time a male takes a lane in the pool or at the starting line, a female athlete loses the opportunity to compete.

    “We are in a battle for the very survival of women’s sports,” Bean said.

    House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York speaks as GOP members hold an event before the vote to prohibit transgender women and girls from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity, at the Capitol on Thursday, April 20, 2
    House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York speaks as GOP members hold an event before the vote to prohibit transgender women and girls from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity, at the Capitol on Thursday, April 20, 2023.

    J. Scott Applewhite / AP


    Democrats said every child regardless of gender identify deserves the opportunity to belong to a team and that preventing competitors from doing so sends the message that they don’t matter.

    Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who has a transgender daughter, said Republicans were cruelly scapegoating transgender children to score political points. She said three-quarters of transgender students report having experienced harassment or discrimination at school and many have considered suicide.

    “These bills tell some of the most vulnerable children in our country that they do not belong,” Jayapal said. “Shame on you.”

    Rep. Mark Pocan, a Democrat of Wisconsin, said most people in the United States don’t know anyone who is transgender and that can create fear for politicians to exploit. The bill, he said, does nothing to address the severe inequities in the resources dedicated to men’s and women’s sports.

    He highlighted the stance taken by GOP Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah, who last year vetoed a bill banning transgender students from playing girls sports. Cox said: “I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion.”

    Pocan noted that in Utah at the time of the veto there were four transgender players out of 85,000 competing in high school sports, with only one competing in girls sports.

    “There’s your raging national problem,” Pocan said. “What’s the Republicans response to this nonexistent issue? Hurt kids for being kids.”

    In a message this week threatening a veto, the White House said that being part of a team is an important part of growing up, staying engaged in school and learning leadership and life skills. It said a national ban that does not account for competitiveness or grade level targets people for who they are and is discriminatory.

    The administration also has issued a proposed rule that would prevent any school or college that receives federal money from imposing a “one-size-fits-all” policy that categorically bans trans students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Such policies would be considered a violation of Title IX.

    Any limits would have to consider the sport, the level of competition and the age of students. Elementary school students would generally be allowed to participate on any teams consistent with their gender identity, for example. More competitive teams at high schools and colleges could add limits, but those would be discouraged in teams that don’t have tryouts or cuts.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • When a Student Seems Violent, Colleges Turn to Threat-Assessment Teams. What Are They?

    When a Student Seems Violent, Colleges Turn to Threat-Assessment Teams. What Are They?

    [ad_1]

    After three students died in a shooting at the University of Virginia, officials updated the shaken campus community during a Monday news conference. They announced that the suspected gunman, also a student, had been arrested after an overnight search. They identified the deceased students, all members of the football team: D’Sean Perry, Devin Chandler, Lavel Davis Jr.

    The university’s police chief also mentioned that the suspect, Christopher Darnell Jones, had recently come to the attention of the university’s threat-assessment team — a group of officials who evaluate possible threats to campus safety.

    In September, the threat-assessment team received word that Jones had made a comment to someone about owning a gun, though that person never saw the gun, said Timothy Longo, the police chief, who is part of the team. The comment about the gun, Longo said, was not accompanied by any threats.

    “The office of student affairs followed up with the reporting person and made efforts to contact Mr. Jones,” Longo said. “In fact, they followed up with Mr. Jones’s roommate, who did not report seeing the presence of a weapon.”

    It wasn’t the first time Jones had crossed paths with the threat-assessment team. He was involved in a hazing investigation focused on the football team; Jones was on the roster in 2018 but did not play in any games. The inquiry was closed after witnesses refused to cooperate. During that investigation, the university learned that Jones had been connected to a previous “criminal incident” outside Charlottesville, which involved a concealed-weapons violation.

    Longo’s comments confirmed that Jones was on the university’s radar months before he was announced as the sole suspect in the murders of Perry, Chandler, and Davis. That revelation brought fresh attention to the role of threat-assessment teams in colleges’ security protocols.

    The teams have existed for 15 years, but outside of student-affairs and campus-safety offices, their role isn’t widely understood. The Chronicle spoke to several higher-education experts about what threat-assessment teams do and potential concerns with how they operate. Here’s what you need to know.

    What are threat-assessment teams?

    Threat-assessment teams, sometimes referred to as behavioral-intervention teams, are groups of college administrators who meet to evaluate students — and, in many cases, faculty, staff, and outsiders — who have been flagged as possible threats to themselves or others.

    In these meetings, which may occur monthly, weekly, or somewhere in between, officials share details on the dangers posed by the students, determine the seriousness of the threats, and decide on a course of action. Often, they’ll use a numerical rubric to make judgments.

    People get so focused on students who might act out, but it could be a disgruntled employee.

    The goal is to intervene before violence occurs by responding to warning signs, such as mental-health challenges or basic needs not being met.

    Experts said there are two schools of thought when it comes to the teams. In one model, the teams focus on students who pose real threats to their own safety or campus safety as a whole. In the other, more common, framework, the focus is on helping students who are at any risk level, including those at risk of academic failure.

    This broader approach recognizes that, in many cases, the students who are at risk of committing violence are also the ones struggling psychologically, socially, and academically, said Victor Schwartz, a psychiatrist and former official with the Jed Foundation, a suicide-prevention group. He now serves as senior associate dean for wellness and student life at the City University of New York School of Medicine, and advises colleges on mental health.

    “Over time, threat assessment became one narrow lane within a much wider effort to provide early identification and early intervention for students struggling in any way,” Schwartz said.

    How did the teams get their start?

    Threat-assessment teams proliferated in higher education following the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, where a student gunman killed 32 people before turning the gun on himself. Some on campus had known about the gunman’s mental-health troubles and violent intentions, but no one had connected the dots.

    “There was no central hub of any wheel that was getting information and sharing information,” said Jeffrey J. Nolan, a lawyer who works with colleges. “Instead, there was a care team in the middle that got bits and pieces. There was lots of information about the offender that never made it to a centralized place.”

    It’s not clear how many colleges have threat-assessment teams, but 633 institutions are members of the National Association for Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment, known as Nabita. Some states, including Virginia, now require public colleges to have such teams.

    Who serves on the teams?

    Membership varies from college to college, but experts said that they often include officials from the departments of public safety, residence life, and student conduct, as well as representatives from the dean of students’ office, the Title IX office, and the counseling center.

    UVA’s team has representation from at least 12 offices, including the campus-safety department, the general counsel’s office, and the student-affairs office.

    “Usually you want the people who are likely to interact with students when they’re in distress of some kind,” Schwartz said.

    A focus on students can come at the expense of awareness of faculty threats, said Jody Shipper, a co-founder and managing director of the higher-ed consulting firm Grand River Solutions. For larger teams, it can be good to have representatives who can speak to issues involving faculty and staff, such as human-resources officials.

    “That doesn’t always happen,” Shipper said, “because people get so focused on students who might act out, but it could be a disgruntled employee.”

    What do teams do once they determine that a student or someone else is a threat?

    If a threat-assessment team determines that a student is in imminent danger of hurting themselves or others, the team will get law enforcement involved right away. If the risk is less immediate, like if a student is struggling in class, the team will create a management plan.

    “You want the most benign intervention to go first,” Schwartz said. “And then you go to deeper interventions depending on the seriousness and acuity of the situation.”

    Shipper said it’s important to remember that the team is not a substitute for law enforcement. Rather, it’s a tool for sharing information, identifying threats, and determining what other information is needed in order to respond appropriately.

    At times, Shipper said, it may be necessary to have outside experts weigh in. Officials may also need to contact people, such as family members, who are close to the person of concern, to gather more information about their state of mind.

    Are there concerns about how the teams operate?

    One of the major concerns surrounding threat-assessment teams is student privacy.

    Students typically don’t know they’re the focus of a threat-assessment investigation, and may be alarmed if they get a call from an official they don’t know asking about their well-being.

    “You don’t want this campus to begin to feel that the slightest thing leads to overreactions, because then people won’t report stuff,” Schwartz said. “So there needs to be a really careful titrating of responses — not to underrespond and not to overrespond.”

    For example, Schwartz said, a police response may not be appropriate for a student experiencing mental-health distress or substance-use issues.

    Plus, Nolan said, in many cases, the student hasn’t done anything to break the law. “A lot of the information gathering is not a law-enforcement function,” he said.

    What are some best practices for threat-assessment teams?

    Shipper said that threat-assessment teams should be narrowly tailored. Administrators in certain roles, she said, should be “identified and required” to be part of the groups.

    “This isn’t an all-volunteer thing, as in you put out an all-campus request” saying “‘Who wants to serve?’” she said.

    The team also has to figure out how it will receive reports, Shipper said — directly, through a triage process, or from the campus-safety department.

    Good teams, she said, also practice how they would respond to reports.

    Despite this week’s tragedies at UVA and the University of Idaho, Schwartz said it was important to remember that colleges are relatively safe places to be and that in general, support systems for at-risk students work well.

    “We don’t hear about all of the tragedies that are averted,” he said. “We only hear about the ones that go badly.”

    [ad_2]

    Kate Hidalgo Bellows

    Source link

  • Republican governors call for withdrawal of proposed Title IX rule changes around transgender student athletes | CNN Politics

    Republican governors call for withdrawal of proposed Title IX rule changes around transgender student athletes | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A group of 25 Republican governors called on the Biden administration Friday to withdraw or delay recently proposed rule changes to Title IX that could prevent states from enforcing anti-transgender sports bans.

    As several bills that aim to ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity make their way through GOP-led state legislatures across the country, the governors argued in a letter sent to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona that such bans ensure fairness.

    Led by Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, the group – including the governors of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming – slammed the administration’s proposal as “a blatant overreach.”

    In April, the Biden administration proposed a new federal rule change for Title IX that would prohibit policies that “categorically” ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender. However, according to a public notice from the department, the proposal would allow schools to enforce some restrictions in “competitive” environments.

    “Leaving aside the Department’s utter lack of authority to promulgate such a regulation, neither states nor schools should be subjected to such a fluid and uncertain standard,” the governors said in the letter. “Nor, most importantly, should the historic advancements and achievements of our sisters, mothers, and daughters be erased.”

    The governors went on to argue that the proposed changes create confusion for states and schools and claimed that the government was threatening to withhold federal funds to coerce schools to comply with a “completely subjective standard that is based on a highly politicized gender ideology.”

    CNN has reached out to the Department of Education for comment.

    Seventeen of the states signed onto the letter have enacted such bans with a few facing legal challenges, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank that advocates for issues including LGBTQ rights. This week, Missouri lawmakers passed a bill prohibiting students from competing in gendered athletic competitions that do not match their biological sex as listed on a birth certificate or government record, and the governor is expected to sign the measure.

    Proponents of such limitations in sports have argued that transgender women have a physical advantage over cisgender women and allowing them to compete would be unfair. However, a 2017 report in the journal Sports Medicine found “no direct or consistent research” on any such advantage.

    When the proposed rule changes were announced, advocates celebrated the new protections but called on the administration to eliminate the exemptions.

    “Every student deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. This includes transgender girls of all ages and in all sports, without exception,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group.

    “The new rule should be clarified to ensure that all transgender students should be presumed eligible to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity,” Robinson added in a statement at the time. “This moment we’re in is truly a crisis for transgender young people – and we’re calling on elected leaders at every level of government to fight harder for our kids.”

    Democratic governors of several states whose legislatures have pushed anti-trans sports bans were not listed among the letter’s signers, including from North Carolina, Kansas and Kentucky. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 470 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced nationwide this legislative session.

    [ad_2]

    Source link