A modified bathroom legislation that would allow trans kids to use the bathroom to their sex identity was discussed by the Pennridge School Board on April 8.
Following a legal overview of the existing policy, which requires students to use the bathroom to match their biological sex, the plan was presented at the policy council meeting for a second read. The scheme, among people, sparked a national civil rights issue against the school district for gender discrimination.
The revised policy would build three bathroom options — individual-user bathrooms, multiple-user bathrooms, and sex-based bathrooms. Importantly, Ernest Johnson, the director of undergraduate services, stated that the plan would allow transgender students to use multi-user bathrooms that reflect their gender identity.
According to Johnson,” Learners who identify different than their sexual assigned at birth or their natural sex may have an option to use those multi-user bathrooms based on how they feel.” The policy’s goal is private and respect for the rights of all students and staff.
Ricki Chaikin, a committee member, objected to the revised legislation and expressed concern for the safety of female students.
” A natural man could go into my mother’s bath. If that’s where this ends, my child will go to a mandate school”, said Chaikin. Most women find it uncomfortable to use the restroom while a man is present, without any apparent purpose. I don’t want my daughter going through that”.
Leah Rash, the head of the policy commission, denied that the policy may” create a bathroom free of charge” and said there would be a “process” involving workers and guidance counselors.
It’s not meant for a student to move in and self-declare and use any toilet they want, Rash said. It doesn’t translate into fully mature men using the restrooms with our female students. No one is saying that. When that is never raised, I don’t want to keep raising that issue.
Rash continued, arguing that the present policy is in contravention of Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, which stated that transgender students are not required to use birth-sex-aligned or individual customer services. She added that the area is unable to legally examine kids’ biological gender.
” Rather than trying to get our students and staff to authorities this down to a degree that violates person’s rights,’ Show me you’re a child, present me you’re a woman,’ our options are to make safe spaces for all our students”, said Rash.
The policy made reference to Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark Supreme Court decision that outlawed employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, concluding that such discrimination is a function of sex discrimination that is prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Jordan Blomgren, a board member, claimed that the Boyertown decision is “up to interpretation,” and that the current policy is in violation of legal precedent. She added that both Title IX and Pennsylvania state law allow gender-segregated bathrooms and that the Bostock decision only addressed discrimination against employees.
Chaikin added that transgender students’ access to additional restroom options was only mandated by the federal civil rights complaint. She criticized the revised policy for favoring a select few students over the others.
” In a building with 2,700 people, it’s somehow discriminatory to put single-user bathrooms for the six children who want it, but it’s not discriminatory to ask the 2,694 other kids to go to a certain bathroom”? asked Chaikin. It makes no sense to take less than 1% of students and comfort them at the expense of 99% of students.
Carolyn Sciarrino, a board member, suggested that transgender students’ official records be kept in mind to stop bad actors from breaking the bathroom rule. Johnson responded that a record like this might infringe on students’ privacy.
” We don’t want to create more harm by asking kids to self-identify,” Johnson said.” It would be difficult for us to create a list or have kids identify themselves. In some cases, they truly want to create it private.”
After that, Sciarrino enquired about possible consequences for breaking the bathroom policy. In response, Johnson said that the issue would be handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the district’s disciplinary policies and procedures.
” We can’t have a cookie-cutter response, because it depends on the gravity of the situation and what actually occurred”, said Johnson.
Ron Wurz and Christine Batycki, both board members, expressed similar concerns about the revised policy and advocated for a balance between sex- and gender-based bathrooms in addition to single-user bathrooms.
” I think that respects both sides of the story and gives people the privacy they need,” said Wurz. ” We need to respect the rights of people who are uncomfortable”.
” I think we need to go back and flesh out more specifics”, said Batycki. We need to consider implications at the middle and elementary levels. I’m not sure whether this is the right course of action.
After some discussion, the board agreed to reintroduce the revised policy for a second first read along with its attorney and review the revised policy.
Additionally, the board discussed fighting and assault, bullying, harassment, and other bathroom safety issues, as well as vaping and drug use. Johnson pointed to vaping, drug use, and loitering as the primary issues.
Johnson reacted by implementing more bathroom monitoring and checks, hiring a female security guard to enlist in the women’s restrooms, establishing an anonymous reporting system for issues with bathroom safety, and locking down specific bathrooms at predetermined times to stop liars.
The next Pennridge school board meeting is on April 22 at 7 p.m. For more information, visit pennridge.org.
