During the school board’s final meeting in 2023, Susan Smith of Powhatan County cast the deciding vote against the adoption of the plan, citing concerns about the effect of model legislation related to how school groups accommodate trans students.
During the meeting on December 12, Smith said, pointing out potential legal ramifications of Gov. “I can’t go with a policy where I do not feel comfortable with all the components.” The school sector now has policies in place to protect the rights of transgender students, according to Glenn Youngkin’s “Model Policies on Ensuring Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia Public Schools.” “I simply can’t.”
Smith’s remarks put an end to a debate County school board members had been having for months: Does adopting the model policy hurt Powhatan County Public Schools students more than help them?
When the model policy was first made public in July, those who support the rights of transgender and nonbinary students were almost immediately concerned. However, despite the fact that a Powhatan School board member’s request for comments elicited pages of comments from locals mostly criticizing the legislation, two of them were unwavering in their support of the proposal.
Vicki Hurt, a member of the District 1 school board, said the policy would ensure that every student and family felt heard.
“What about the parent who doesn’t want their daughter to play sports with a biological male?” Hurt inquired. “Children have a right to know all the positive, negative, and difficult aspects of their baby.”
James Taylor, a district 4 member, concurred with Hurt and noted that the model policy had safeguard parental rights.
“I want to hear all that occurs in my child’s life because I have three daughters,” according to Taylor.
During the meeting’s public comment time, the majority of the school board members voiced their opposition to the model policy, calling it unfair and claiming that it would result in harassment and abuse of trans individuals.
Two members of the school board stated that they had concerns about the policy as well, both legally and in terms of how it might affect vulnerable individuals.
Kim Hymel, a representative for District 5, said, “If anything, it’s discriminatory.” “We now have non-discriminatory policies, and we ought to maintain them.” Not like this.
Valarie Ayers, a representative for District 3, claimed that her opposition to the plan had never changed while she was present at her final regular school board meeting that evening.
She insisted that in order to protect students, the steps set forth in the model plan “do not accomplish what they say they do.” “They act in the exact opposite way.”
Smith acknowledged that she had occasionally been “torn” when trying to decide which way she should vote.
But in the end, she was unable to overcome her serious reservations.
Smith stated that “all of the policies we put in place are supposed to be for all individuals.” “And we aren’t doing our jobs to the fullest extent when we’re not working for all students.”
Smith questioned how she could possibly vote for the policy, calling it vague and contradictory.
She claimed that the legislation would ultimately accomplish “nothing but make our pupils pawns in a social game.”
