CCSD Trustees Vote 4-3 To Push Ahead With Gender Diversity Policy

By VERNON ROBISON

Moapa Valley Progress

Draft language for a formal policy on how Clark County schools will handle transgender students was approved in a split vote of the Clark County School District (CCSD) Board of Trustees on Thursday night. Once again, the agenda item drew a huge turnout from the public, filling the County Commission Chambers where the meeting was held, and overflowing to other designated areas of the building.
Discussion went late into the night. Public comments alone went on for more than two hours. Then the board continued further detailed discussions about policy language with a final vote not taking place until well after midnight.

Public comment reflected the same deep divisions that have existed since the process began more than a year ago. As in past meetings, those in opposition to the policy held an clear majority of those in attendance. This was bourne out in the ratio of public comments given. Of the 49 comments made on the item, 33 were opposed to the policy. Only 16 spoke in favor.

Proponents of the policy urged swift action. Many stated that enough discussion had taken place on it and it was time now for the board to do something.
“We have beat this horse to death,” said Laura Hernandez of the Gender Justice Nevada group. “Now let’s move on and decide what actions are taken for those who still have concerns.”

But opponents pleaded with trustees to slow down and listen to the voices of parents who have expressed concerns throughout the process. Many of these commenters came from the Moapa Valley communities.
“As parents, we are begging you to include us and listen to us in this process,” said Moapa parent Lisa Wolfley. “We are begging you to pull back and let us help in making a policy that includes everyone and not just one group.”

“Concerned parents like myself have attended these meetings for a long time,” said parent Mindy Davies of Overton. “With this proposed policy we feel unheard and unheeded.”

Erika Whitmore, a parent from Logandale, echoed that there are many voices which are not being sought in the process. “Have you asked the students?” she said. “Has anyone thought of that? Especially the girls; they are very concerned about their privacy and safety. There are going to be ramifications of this and I don’t think that students are prepared for it.”

The Moapa Valley chapter of the statewide group Power2Parent had circulated a petition among their friends, neighbors and families. By approaching people both in person and online, the group had gathered more than 600 names opposed to the policy as written. This petition was presented to the trustees for the record. Each of the local parents who made comments read off a lengthy sampling of names from the petition.

“Here you are acting on this important and controversial issue during the summer when many people are away and unable to be here to voice their opposition,” said Moapa mom Wendy Jensen. “We would ask that these names be added into the record as just a few of those who couldn’t be here tonight to express opposition.”

During the board discussion, trustees went through the draft policy, asked questions and recommended changes. Trustees Chris Garvey and Linda Young, who have been opposed to the policy throughout the process, went through the draft language carefully to bring out concerns they had heard from constituents.

A major issue was the handling of restrooms and locker rooms to accommodate transgender students. The draft language specified that, when a student identifies as transgender, a Gender Support Team must be assembled. This team; consisting of parents, the student, school administrators and other appropriate district experts and school staff members; would develop a customized “gender support plan” for that individual student. Among other things, the plan would determine logistics surrounding which restroom or locker room the student would be using.

Proponents of the policy say that this language simply brings district policy into full compliance with the state’s public accommodations law that already exists. But Garvey contested the interpretation that school restrooms and locker rooms should even be included within the mandate of that law.
“When you read the (public accommodations) law, it talks mostly about hotels and inns,” Garvey said. “It doesn’t seem apply to schools at all.”

Garvey asked CCSD legal staff if there was any legal precedent or case law that had decided this issue. The response from the CCSD legal team was that, while the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) had made a vague decision on the matter, nothing formally had been decided either way by the courts.
Garvey said that she had heard many concerns from parents on this subject. “Having these options given to the school team is concerning when I have no idea how the rights of the student body at-large are being protected,” she said.

Young asked about the legality of a gender neutral restroom/locker room option.
“That is definitely an option,” responded CCSD attorney Carlos McDade. “But if you say that transgender students have to use the gender neutral bathroom, that is discrimination. If you are going to open it up to boys, girls and neutral as an option, then it is okay.”

CCSD Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky pointed out that if gender neutral facilities had to be provided in all 350-plus buildings in the district, it would have a major budget financial impact.
“I understand that,” Young said. “But if we are going to have parents and students who will balk and pull away, we will lose out anyway.”

Young said that there seemed to be a lot more research and legal groundwork to be done on this subject. “When we have so many people concerned about this, holding off to clarify and research these matters of the law seems to be needed,” she said. “For us to just move forward despite all of these unanswered questions, it is a mistake. This issue and the public accommodations law; they are really the big elephant in the room that needs to be handled.”

Another controversial topic raised was the draft policy’s handling of overnight field trips. The policy gives the Gender Support Team the ability to determine hotel room accommodations for a transgender student based upon the student’s stated gender identity.

Garvey expressed strong concerns about the fact that the team’s actions would be done entirely behind closed doors. The draft policy did not specify that parents of other students be informed that a transgender student would be assigned to share a hotel room with their child, Garvey said.

Dr. Greta Peay, CCSD Director of Equity and Diversity, stated that it was current practice for the teams to ask transgender students and their parents for permission to contact all other affected students and get parental permission to take such an action. “We always get all of the parents’ permission before that is done,” Peay said.
“Yes, but there is nothing in the language here that delineates that,” Garvey said. “As a parent, I would be very uncomfortable with this as it is written.”

Garvey also asked for clarification on a section of the draft policy which gave students the right to be addressed by the name or pronoun corresponding to their gender expression. She was concerned that this could lead to confusion and difficulty in record-keeping.

“Some want multitudes of pronouns, and sometimes varying pronouns depending on the moods of the day,” Garvey said. “I feel like there needs to be some structure here so it doesn’t get away from us.”
Even more concerning to Garvey was the draft’s reference to discipline of employees, volunteers or students over the misuse of these preferred names and pronouns.

Peay assured that these disciplinary methods were only intended to come into play if there was an established case of bullying taking place.

But again, Garvey pointed out that these specifics were not stated in the draft policy language. “As it is, anyone and their brother can call in and say that they have seen such-and-such volunteer call the person a ‘she’ when they identify as a male,” Garvey said. “I have a feeling that there is a possibility to have some issues here.”

“How do we hold a volunteer accountable?” Garvey added. “How do we discipline a volunteer? I already have schools that have seen their volunteers go to almost zero because of the new background check law. Now this is likely yyo drive out whoever we have left.”

But Trustee Linda Cavazos dismissed this as a real problem. “This is not meant to be punitive of volunteers, children, teachers, whatever,” she said. “If we keep reading into it how are they going to punish someone, we will be here all night.”

Given the substantial number of questions brought up, and changes being proposed in the draft language, Young suggested that the process pull back to involve the input of parents in a major revision of the policy.
“I feel like we have to find a middle ground here,” Young said. “We can’t have one side as the winners and the other as the losers in this. That is why I will not support this as it is. If we move forward with this, we are leaving a lot of people behind.”

But Trustee Carolyn Edwards was intent on moving forward. She made a motion to approve the language with proposed changes, and to bring a revised draft forward again before the board in a future meeting for final approval.
“Most of the changes are clarifications and enhancements of what is already there,” Edwards said. “We could make the changes and bring it back for review and not have to start all over again.”

Edwards disputed the assertion made by parents that the board had not listened to them. “I have listened to every word that you have said,” she said, aiming at the audience. “But it is not a requirement in listening that I have to agree with you. I’m going to politely disagree. I believe that we need this policy.”

But Young reiterated that the issue was more than just needing to tweak the policy language. Rather it was taking the time to bring the parent groups into the process and have their concerns resolved.
“The recognize that we are going forward; it’s not if but when,” Young said. “But you know, sometimes people want to just jam stuff through despite working with the people who have concerns. And you have done this before where I haven’t been able to get back to my people and work with them and then get back to you. Instead it had to be right now! You have people with concerns in this process. They will come along, I truly believe that. But we have got to get everyone back together on it. Otherwise it will be a mistake.”

Edwards’ motion was brought to a vote and approved 4-3. Garvey, Young and Trustee Kevin Child were opposed.

A tentative date of August 9 was set for the board to hear the final draft with changes.