- April 25, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
With two new board members seated, the Flagler County School Board still does not support adding “gender identity” to the list of identity categories protected in its nondiscrimination statement. Doing so would make clear that transgender students are protected.
The split is now 3-2 against adding the wording, rather than 4-1, as it had been before.
"As a School Board member, I’m here to protect kids, but I’m not here to make laws that are so controversial."
— JILL WOOLBRIGHT, School Board member
Longtime board member Colleen Conklin proposed adding the language during a Dec. 1 board workshop as the board considered a set of federally-mandated changes to the nondiscrimination policy.
Other board members argued against adding the wording on the basis that it was controversial and that the district’s existing protections against discrimination on the basis of gender implicitly also cover gender identity.
“The whole reason we have even had this conversation is because not all students feel protected, and not all students feel they’re being treated equally,” Conklin said. “... They have shared very clearly what’s happening in their world. ... If we don’t support the inclusion of those terms in our policy, what message does that send?”
The potential wording change was first proposed a year ago by the parents of a local trans student, and the topic incited a series of contentious board meetings as trans students and their supporters faced off against opponents who called trans people unnatural and mentally ill.
Those discussions came to a head when the board placed the proposed change on a meeting agenda but decided against it after Conklin was the only one to support it. Since that meeting, new board members Jill Woolbright and Cheryl Massaro have been seated, and a Supreme Court case has established that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation constitutes illegal discrimination on the basis of sex.
"Not all students feel protected, and not all students feel they’re being treated equally. ... If we don't support the inclusion of those terms in our policy, what message does that send?"
— COLLEEN CONKLIN, School Board member
Conklin, after listening to several board members argue that adding the words “gender identity” isn’t necessary, noted that transgender students have addressed the board to say they don’t feel protected.
“If you were one of those students and you came and you shared your story, and you heard this conversation right now, how would that make you feel about who you are?” Conklin said.
Massaro agreed with Conklin, saying adding the wording would be worth it if it protects even one student.
But Woolbright called the issue “controversial,” framing that as a reason the board should not add protections for trans students, rather than as a reason they might be especially in need of explicit protection.
“As a School Board member, I’m here to protect kids, but I’m not here to make laws that are so controversial, that have divided this country — and you include them, you divide the country; you exclude them, you divide the country,” Woolbright said. “It’s words on the paper that the Supreme Court said is not necessary.”
Woolbright was referring to a recent Supreme Court decision that established that discriminating against people on the basis of their transgender identity, or against gay, bisexual or lesbian people on the basis of their sexual orientation, violates existing Civil Rights Act protections against discrimination on the basis of sex.
An employer who allows non-transgender women to wear dresses but fires a transgender woman for doing the same thing, for instance, is treating the transgender woman differently on the basis of her birth sex, which constitutes sex discrimination, the court found in its 6-3 decision.
Board member Janet McDonald said the district can protect students through procedures, without changing policy.
“Our individual walk through life is what we’re here to do, and everyone takes on burdens or takes on opportunities that drive them to the next level of development,” McDonald said. “And I can’t coach each one of them individually, but at certain times we all have misperceptions about who we are and where we are and what we want to do. But that’s part of our growth process, and so, we have a very safe place for kids to grow.”
Woolbright, McDonald and Board member Trevor Tucker described adding “gender identity” as a slippery slope that could lead the board to list out every individual race, individual gender identity and individual sexual orientation and make the policy, in Tucker’s wording, “900 pages long.”
Woolbright said that she’d heard from locals who adamantly oppose adding the words “gender identity” and who’d said that if the board adds explicit protection for gender identity, then it should also add explicit protections for biracial students.
McDonald agreed with Woolbright’s concern.
“You could piecemeal every single one of the qualifiers, every shade of the rainbow, every religion, every non-religion,” McDonald said. “You could go through the whole list; somebody is going to feel left out. ... When you start dividing and splitting hairs — this identity politics, it’s always going to leave someone out, and no one group is more important or less important than another.”
The board’s existing policy lists “race, color, religion, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, disability, political or religious beliefs, national or ethnic origin, or genetic information.”
Those are all categories of identities rather than individual identities, and adding “gender identity” would be adding another category, not a specific identity. Still, one of the proposed mandated changes to the district policy adds a parenthetical after the word race — inserting the words, “(including anti-Semitism)”.
“There’s just another example of a group that felt unprotected that needs to be added,” Massaro said. “... The transgender and LGBT group in Flagler County ... are going to continue to grow, and they’re going to be here because they do not believe that they are equally represented and protected, and I have to agree to them. ... [Adding “gender identity”] shows that it’s protected; that’s all they’re asking. ... If that’s all it takes, I don’t understand the problem.”
