this is a basic civil right
November 3, 2015 11:04 AM Subscribe
The U.S. Department of Education announced yesterday that an Illinois school district is violating the rights of a transgender student by refusing to allow her the unrestricted use of a girls' locker room. This statement comes one week after the Department of Justice filed a brief supporting Gavin Grimm, a high school student in Virginia who has been denied access to the boy's bathrooms.
via NYT: "The Education Department gave 30 days to the officials of Township High School District 211 to reach a solution or face enforcement, which could include administrative law proceedings or a Justice Department court action. The district could lose some or all of its Title IX funding."
via NYT: "The Education Department gave 30 days to the officials of Township High School District 211 to reach a solution or face enforcement, which could include administrative law proceedings or a Justice Department court action. The district could lose some or all of its Title IX funding."
Is it bad that I'm already starting to compare any deadline given by an executive branch office to the time until the next President is inaugurated?
posted by Etrigan at 11:20 AM on November 3, 2015
posted by Etrigan at 11:20 AM on November 3, 2015
Meanwhile, in Texas: The ugly myth about trans people opponents of a Houston civil rights law are using to win
The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) prohibits discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations (restaurants, hotels, and other places that serve the public) against people based on a variety of traits, particularly sexual orientation and gender identity. The local law is meant to fill a gap in Texas's — and most states' — laws: LGBTQ people aren't currently included in nondiscrimination statutes.posted by zombieflanders at 11:22 AM on November 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Houston City Council passed HERO in 2014. But conservative opponents, arguing that businesses should be able to discriminate against LGBTQ people, managed to get a referendum on HERO on the ballot after lengthy legal battles stretching back to last year. So in November, Houston voters will decide if they want to keep the law.
The campaign has taken a dark turn. As Katherine Driessen of the Houston Chronicle reported, "Opponents of the ordinance, largely conservative Christians, have flooded radio and TV with ads saying the law gives men dressed in women's clothing, including sexual predators, the ability to enter a woman's restroom. On Tuesday, the group released a TV spot that closes with a man bursting into a stall occupied by a young girl."
Mod note: One comment deleted. Sorry, this is an issue we've had raging horrible fights over here, and it's not really something we're going to re-litigate in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2015 [11 favorites]
I think it's GREAT that the Department of Education is doing this! Nice work guys! There may be things you do that drive me nuts but this is an excellent way to help support students in actually going to school which is the first step in getting an education. Supporting trans teenagers is the right thing to do in any circumstances and creating an environment in which kids feel safe is an important part of promoting education in this country. It effing sucks that bullshit douchebags are making this hard but the Department of Education making this a priority is an excellent, excellent thing. Still a crazy, terrifying, bonkersly long way to go before things are safe or okay but this seems like a really, really good thing to me (that said if it's not I'm very open to hearing other opinions).
I'm so glad these kids are getting official government support! Yay for that!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:25 AM on November 3, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'm so glad these kids are getting official government support! Yay for that!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:25 AM on November 3, 2015 [7 favorites]
National treasure Charles Pierce provides some context to the Texas equal rights proposal (and, of course, brings the mockery where due).
posted by Gelatin at 11:26 AM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 11:26 AM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Sally Field Adds Her Plea For Houston's HERO Ordinance
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:28 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:28 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
The ugly myth about trans people opponents of a Houston civil rights law are using to win
Having serious flashbacks to 2004 here. The GOP can't win the White House with their current crop of uninspiring gomers (every one of them has something that will keep some portion of the base at home), so gin up some social issue that'll scare the troglodytes to the polls, get it on a bunch of local and state ballots, and boom.
posted by Etrigan at 11:28 AM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Having serious flashbacks to 2004 here. The GOP can't win the White House with their current crop of uninspiring gomers (every one of them has something that will keep some portion of the base at home), so gin up some social issue that'll scare the troglodytes to the polls, get it on a bunch of local and state ballots, and boom.
posted by Etrigan at 11:28 AM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Does Title IX have US Constitutional standing, or would it be overridden by a state Constitution?
I'm not sure what you mean by "constitutional standing," but it's a federal spending clause statute. The requirements come attached to federal money, so any state that decides not to comply is welcome to decline the funding.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:34 AM on November 3, 2015
I'm not sure what you mean by "constitutional standing," but it's a federal spending clause statute. The requirements come attached to federal money, so any state that decides not to comply is welcome to decline the funding.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:34 AM on November 3, 2015
Oh, how fortuitous, we're having our elections today in Virginia. Here are some brief bios on the candidates for the Gloucester County School Board.
posted by indubitable at 11:38 AM on November 3, 2015
posted by indubitable at 11:38 AM on November 3, 2015
What percent of a schools budget would they lose if they lost out on Title IX funding?
posted by davidstandaford at 11:42 AM on November 3, 2015
posted by davidstandaford at 11:42 AM on November 3, 2015
The federal government's share is 8.3 percent.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2015
Mod note: Deleted a few comments, the "boners" stuff is going to be a problem so better to skip it. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:59 AM on November 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:59 AM on November 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
odinsdream: "So I guess they're saying they don't want the money then, since they apparently still aren't intending on complying with the ruling:"
This is "just" an administrative ruling; they'll file in court and get a stay while litigation is pending, and I think it's highly likely to be appealed whatever the outcome. It will take at least a couple of years for a final ruling before any sanctions are applied. (Also, I think I know like 60% of the lawyers working on both sides of this case. Also I've met a couple of the board members in 211 -- which is Palatine/Schaumberg/Fremd/etc. for the Illinois folks)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:16 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is "just" an administrative ruling; they'll file in court and get a stay while litigation is pending, and I think it's highly likely to be appealed whatever the outcome. It will take at least a couple of years for a final ruling before any sanctions are applied. (Also, I think I know like 60% of the lawyers working on both sides of this case. Also I've met a couple of the board members in 211 -- which is Palatine/Schaumberg/Fremd/etc. for the Illinois folks)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:16 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
The district could lose some or all of its Title IX funding.
The burden of this punishment will surely fall on the heads of those responsible, as well, and certainly not on the children who have nothing to do with it.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:23 PM on November 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
The burden of this punishment will surely fall on the heads of those responsible, as well, and certainly not on the children who have nothing to do with it.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:23 PM on November 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
And that makes a handy narrative: "Sorry, kids, there's not gonna be any sports this year. Thanks, Obummer. Our GOP representatives would never force us to let predators into our children's locker rooms!"
Yeah, right, they'd kill sports. Art, music, maaaybe vocational ed. Not sports.
posted by Etrigan at 12:25 PM on November 3, 2015
Yeah, right, they'd kill sports. Art, music, maaaybe vocational ed. Not sports.
posted by Etrigan at 12:25 PM on November 3, 2015
The GOP can't win the White House with their current crop of uninspiring gomers (every one of them has something that will keep some portion of the base at home), so gin up some social issue that'll scare the troglodytes to the polls, get it on a bunch of local and state ballots, and boom.
Don't forget a heaping side order of "voter fraud prevention" disenfranchisement laws.
In a small way I'm almost encouraged. The Republican Party is all but admitting outright it can't win the popular vote. The problem is that right-wing talk radio has made "compromise" -- the foundation of our checks and balances system -- anathema to the crazy base.
posted by Gelatin at 12:28 PM on November 3, 2015
Don't forget a heaping side order of "voter fraud prevention" disenfranchisement laws.
In a small way I'm almost encouraged. The Republican Party is all but admitting outright it can't win the popular vote. The problem is that right-wing talk radio has made "compromise" -- the foundation of our checks and balances system -- anathema to the crazy base.
posted by Gelatin at 12:28 PM on November 3, 2015
What a rotten thing to do to the student. They're already singling her out and this is just going to make it - possibly dangerously - worse. You shouldn't be a principal if you aren't putting the safety and well-being of your kids first, with particular emphasis on the safety and wellbeing of the most vulnerable.
posted by Frowner at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
Art, music, maaaybe vocational ed. Not sports.
They have art and music?!
(Fortunately, my daughters go to a magnet and a charter high school, respectively, and they both have art and music programs, but I doubt every high school here in Indiana is so fortunate.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:32 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
They have art and music?!
(Fortunately, my daughters go to a magnet and a charter high school, respectively, and they both have art and music programs, but I doubt every high school here in Indiana is so fortunate.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:32 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not at clear that the Federal courts will agree with the Department of Education here. In two recent federal cases, judges found Title IX irrelevant to cases of transgender students' use of the bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify.
posted by alms at 12:48 PM on November 3, 2015
posted by alms at 12:48 PM on November 3, 2015
Title IX is based on sex.
posted by decathexis at 12:50 PM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by decathexis at 12:50 PM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not saying I've got any answers, but I'm pretty sure we don't need to be looking for answers from people who confuse gender identification with perversion.
posted by Mooski at 12:52 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Mooski at 12:52 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wisconsin legislators have introduced a bill (AB 469) that would prohibit trans students from using bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. It is in committee right now and they just announced yesterday that there is a public hearing this Thursday morning (gee thanks for the advance notice). I am... beyond enraged that this is happening here. I hope it dies a fiery death in committee.
posted by desjardins at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
alms: "It's not at clear that the Federal courts will agree with the Department of Education here. In two recent federal cases, judges found Title IX irrelevant to cases of transgender students' use of the bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify."
That article actually hits many of the points I would raise in considering the Palatine situation w/r/t federal and Illinois law, and while I am personally the author of the first-in-Illinois school district policy guaranteeing trans students access to their preferred bathroom and ensuring they were protected from discrimination or bullying by staff or other students, I do actually think the Department of Ed has overreached what Title IX supports (which is part of why I pushed so hard to get non-discrimination rules in our district -- I didn't think either state or federal rules were adequate).
Based on what I know of state law and the lawyers involved, I would think that District 211's legal defense will be based on the privacy rights of the other students (which the Loyola prof also notes), but I suspect that the two religious organizations who filed amicus briefs (whatever they're called in administrative cases) will try to find a religious student -- possibly Muslim or Orthodox Jewish, based on the area's demographics -- to bring a related religious freedom suit (which she also notes). I think these are really interesting and complicated legal issues without an easy solution as we are talking about 1) minors who are 2) FORCED to change clothes (because they are required to participate in PE; it is legal to require them to change into a PE uniform; and they can be suspended, expelled, or have their diploma withheld for failing to do either of those two things) and 3) ALL have compelling privacy rights. However, we should also note that school officials do have a 4) duty to supervise children while they are in the lockerroom, which is one reason why lockerrooms are open instead of having separate changing cubicles. (Lockerrooms are really problematic spaces for student-on-student harassment and assault; for students having consensual sex; and for drugs. And other shenanigans. It's probably legally negligent not to have a staff member supervising the students changing clothes. Doubtless this can be done with separate changing cubicles but there are a variety of cost and staff issues that would come up as a practical matter.) Finally, I think the religious freedom claims will actually turn out quite legally compelling because of the weight of precedent, but it'll be interesting to see how seriously the courts take the requirement to change for gym when it comes to federal civil rights claims.
The area in question is a relatively wealthy suburban area of Chicago, btw, pretty evenly Dem/GOP split, and there's not a big cultural conservative GOP movement in that area -- mostly Wall Street fiscal conservatives.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2015 [14 favorites]
That article actually hits many of the points I would raise in considering the Palatine situation w/r/t federal and Illinois law, and while I am personally the author of the first-in-Illinois school district policy guaranteeing trans students access to their preferred bathroom and ensuring they were protected from discrimination or bullying by staff or other students, I do actually think the Department of Ed has overreached what Title IX supports (which is part of why I pushed so hard to get non-discrimination rules in our district -- I didn't think either state or federal rules were adequate).
Based on what I know of state law and the lawyers involved, I would think that District 211's legal defense will be based on the privacy rights of the other students (which the Loyola prof also notes), but I suspect that the two religious organizations who filed amicus briefs (whatever they're called in administrative cases) will try to find a religious student -- possibly Muslim or Orthodox Jewish, based on the area's demographics -- to bring a related religious freedom suit (which she also notes). I think these are really interesting and complicated legal issues without an easy solution as we are talking about 1) minors who are 2) FORCED to change clothes (because they are required to participate in PE; it is legal to require them to change into a PE uniform; and they can be suspended, expelled, or have their diploma withheld for failing to do either of those two things) and 3) ALL have compelling privacy rights. However, we should also note that school officials do have a 4) duty to supervise children while they are in the lockerroom, which is one reason why lockerrooms are open instead of having separate changing cubicles. (Lockerrooms are really problematic spaces for student-on-student harassment and assault; for students having consensual sex; and for drugs. And other shenanigans. It's probably legally negligent not to have a staff member supervising the students changing clothes. Doubtless this can be done with separate changing cubicles but there are a variety of cost and staff issues that would come up as a practical matter.) Finally, I think the religious freedom claims will actually turn out quite legally compelling because of the weight of precedent, but it'll be interesting to see how seriously the courts take the requirement to change for gym when it comes to federal civil rights claims.
The area in question is a relatively wealthy suburban area of Chicago, btw, pretty evenly Dem/GOP split, and there's not a big cultural conservative GOP movement in that area -- mostly Wall Street fiscal conservatives.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2015 [14 favorites]
That article actually hits many of the points I would raise in considering the Palatine situation w/r/t federal and Illinois law, and while I am personally the author of the first-in-Illinois school district policy guaranteeing trans students access to their preferred bathroom and ensuring they were protected from discrimination or bullying by staff or other students, I do actually think the Department of Ed has overreached what Title IX supports (which is part of why I pushed so hard to get non-discrimination rules in our district -- I didn't think either state or federal rules were adequate).
Agreed. It's nice that the DoE has taken that stance, and it has encouraged many organizations to adopt more inclusive policies. But I don't think it's as strong as an explicit amendment to Title IX or an ENDA to cover gender identity, and it's a brief that politicians will quickly abandon if they get cold feet as they did with DOMA and DADT.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:19 PM on November 3, 2015
Agreed. It's nice that the DoE has taken that stance, and it has encouraged many organizations to adopt more inclusive policies. But I don't think it's as strong as an explicit amendment to Title IX or an ENDA to cover gender identity, and it's a brief that politicians will quickly abandon if they get cold feet as they did with DOMA and DADT.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:19 PM on November 3, 2015
I think at some point we're going to have to articulate precisely what is the rationale for having separate boys & girls locker rooms. Is it based on the perceived privacy concerns of the individual students? Is it simply a pragmatic tactic for keeping order? Why is it OK for a student to be required to change clothes in the presence of anyone?
posted by straight at 1:25 PM on November 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by straight at 1:25 PM on November 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm confused about the religious freedom thing. If that went anywhere, wouldn't the requirement end up being accommodation for the religious student (i.e., a separate changing area)? Why would it affect where the trans student would change?
posted by thetortoise at 1:30 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 1:30 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
thetortoise: Some religions have a huge taboo against men and women being in close contact outside of a marriage. And, if that same religion also defines your gender based on what is between your legs...
Not agreeing, just explaining.
posted by SansPoint at 1:54 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not agreeing, just explaining.
posted by SansPoint at 1:54 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Right, but it seems like that would only become an issue if the institution were itself religiously based, because otherwise the school would just respond by giving students with this religious belief a separate changing area of their own, rather than placing this burden on the trans student. At least, that seems to be what makes practical sense to me, but I am not a lawyer or very familiar with how these kinds of claims work.
posted by thetortoise at 2:11 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thetortoise at 2:11 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why is it OK for a student to be required to change clothes in the presence of anyone?
It's really not. Doesn't everyone hate this? Is it supposed to build character or some shit?
posted by chaiminda at 2:12 PM on November 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
It's really not. Doesn't everyone hate this? Is it supposed to build character or some shit?
posted by chaiminda at 2:12 PM on November 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
For those outside of Chicagoland: D211 is the largest school district in Illinois and is located in the north west corner of Cook County and historically was one of the destinations for all those white flight folks escaping Chicago. It's pretty republican in it's politics (Henry Hyde territory) and it recently wanted to leave Cook county over an increase in taxes.
posted by zenon at 2:19 PM on November 3, 2015
posted by zenon at 2:19 PM on November 3, 2015
> Is it supposed to build character or some shit?
Yes, it's supposed to teach children that the powers that be can demand invasive access to the child's body for whatever reason, regardless of discomfort or privacy concerns. This is a very important character trait for our workers to internalize at an early age.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:27 PM on November 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yes, it's supposed to teach children that the powers that be can demand invasive access to the child's body for whatever reason, regardless of discomfort or privacy concerns. This is a very important character trait for our workers to internalize at an early age.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:27 PM on November 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
thetortoise: " If that went anywhere, wouldn't the requirement end up being accommodation for the religious student (i.e., a separate changing area)? Why would it affect where the trans student would change?"
If the argument is that it's unduly burdensome to require a trans student to change in a separate area, then the argument is that it's also unduly burdensome to require a religious student to change in separate area, and free religious exercise is a very strong Constitutional right, while trans protections are, at best, a weakly-defined and weakly-defended federal right at this point in time.
You would probably then have an argument that the trans student wants to be personally included, while the religious student wants to have someone else excluded, but for a variety of complicated reasons I don't think that's a winning legal argument in Illinois (other lawyers will totally disagree, and it's question of legal analysis and trying to guess the court's attitude, not certainty), and it would also involve really endless briefs about the adequacy of facilities to accommodate particular student needs and, if the court decided to base their ruling on THAT point, I believe it would be extremely narrowly tailored to focus on just that one specific situation. I think this argument also invites an argument that "including the trans student excludes a dozen religious students," which I believe would be persuasive to some judges in some parts of Illinois. I would literally wait to put the "inclusion" argument in my brief until I knew which judge would be hearing my case.
I know the impulse of a lot of mefites would be to go to intent and argue that the trans student has pure motives but the religious student has obviously malicious motives, but I think that is a NIGHTMARE place to try to go (even if there's any legal relevance to it, which I question) -- especially when we're talking about the comfort level of minors with group nudity, who had no choice in whether their parents brought the lawsuits, so the minors' intent in bringing the lawsuit can't really be at question, but their comfort level can, and it's not going to be hard to find 15-year-old girls uncomfortable with nudity. It would also be difficult to argue that District 211 "intended" to exclude the trans student (if we want to go to the intent of the adults) because they actually made more accommodations for inclusion than are required under current Illinois law.
chaiminda: "Is it supposed to build character or some shit?"
It's a balancing of the requirement that students participate in gym class with the requirements that lockerrooms be supervised, with an architectural holdover that most of these high schools were built for the Baby Boom generation, when the culture had a lot less nudity anxiety in front of same-sex peers and boys were still swimming in naked swimming pools because it was "healthier" than wearing a bathing suit. Newer high schools tend to have better, slightly more private facilities, but these schools built in the 50s and 60s have giant communal showers (that NOBODY EVER USES EVER, lots of schools store sports equipment in them because it's been so long since students agreed to shower after gym class what with the group shower).
zenon: "D211 is the largest school district in Illinois"
This is not even a little true; it's not even in the top 10. It has like 12,000 students; Peoria has 14,000. Chicago has 400,000. Naperville, Aurora, St. Charles, Rockford -- all bigger. I don't think D211 is even what's called a "LUDA" which is a group for big districts in Illinois. (I looked it up, according to ISBE, D211 is the 21st-largest district in Illinois.)
zenon: "It's pretty republican"
I mean, it's fairly Republican by Cook County standards, but it's not CRAZY Republican -- you can display by township using this map and see how many voters there voted for Bruce Rauner (50 to 60%) during an unusually strong GOP swing in the state gubernatorial election when many of the votes were protest "not Pat Quinn" votes. Also keep in mind that there are a lot of non-voting immigrants in these suburbs who are also served by the school district. I mean I'd call it a Republican-leaning area but it's certainly not a lock anymore.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:36 PM on November 3, 2015 [14 favorites]
If the argument is that it's unduly burdensome to require a trans student to change in a separate area, then the argument is that it's also unduly burdensome to require a religious student to change in separate area, and free religious exercise is a very strong Constitutional right, while trans protections are, at best, a weakly-defined and weakly-defended federal right at this point in time.
You would probably then have an argument that the trans student wants to be personally included, while the religious student wants to have someone else excluded, but for a variety of complicated reasons I don't think that's a winning legal argument in Illinois (other lawyers will totally disagree, and it's question of legal analysis and trying to guess the court's attitude, not certainty), and it would also involve really endless briefs about the adequacy of facilities to accommodate particular student needs and, if the court decided to base their ruling on THAT point, I believe it would be extremely narrowly tailored to focus on just that one specific situation. I think this argument also invites an argument that "including the trans student excludes a dozen religious students," which I believe would be persuasive to some judges in some parts of Illinois. I would literally wait to put the "inclusion" argument in my brief until I knew which judge would be hearing my case.
I know the impulse of a lot of mefites would be to go to intent and argue that the trans student has pure motives but the religious student has obviously malicious motives, but I think that is a NIGHTMARE place to try to go (even if there's any legal relevance to it, which I question) -- especially when we're talking about the comfort level of minors with group nudity, who had no choice in whether their parents brought the lawsuits, so the minors' intent in bringing the lawsuit can't really be at question, but their comfort level can, and it's not going to be hard to find 15-year-old girls uncomfortable with nudity. It would also be difficult to argue that District 211 "intended" to exclude the trans student (if we want to go to the intent of the adults) because they actually made more accommodations for inclusion than are required under current Illinois law.
chaiminda: "Is it supposed to build character or some shit?"
It's a balancing of the requirement that students participate in gym class with the requirements that lockerrooms be supervised, with an architectural holdover that most of these high schools were built for the Baby Boom generation, when the culture had a lot less nudity anxiety in front of same-sex peers and boys were still swimming in naked swimming pools because it was "healthier" than wearing a bathing suit. Newer high schools tend to have better, slightly more private facilities, but these schools built in the 50s and 60s have giant communal showers (that NOBODY EVER USES EVER, lots of schools store sports equipment in them because it's been so long since students agreed to shower after gym class what with the group shower).
zenon: "D211 is the largest school district in Illinois"
This is not even a little true; it's not even in the top 10. It has like 12,000 students; Peoria has 14,000. Chicago has 400,000. Naperville, Aurora, St. Charles, Rockford -- all bigger. I don't think D211 is even what's called a "LUDA" which is a group for big districts in Illinois. (I looked it up, according to ISBE, D211 is the 21st-largest district in Illinois.)
zenon: "It's pretty republican"
I mean, it's fairly Republican by Cook County standards, but it's not CRAZY Republican -- you can display by township using this map and see how many voters there voted for Bruce Rauner (50 to 60%) during an unusually strong GOP swing in the state gubernatorial election when many of the votes were protest "not Pat Quinn" votes. Also keep in mind that there are a lot of non-voting immigrants in these suburbs who are also served by the school district. I mean I'd call it a Republican-leaning area but it's certainly not a lock anymore.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:36 PM on November 3, 2015 [14 favorites]
Laws preventing people from using the bathroom and locker room for their gender is blatant dehumanization. That said, I'd love to see some school or other organization react to these laws by making all bathrooms and locker rooms gender neutral. I'm sure a-gender and genderqueer folks would appreciate it, plus it's a lovely middle finger towards the gender police.
The principal at my trans son's elementary school considered this, but felt the trouble it would cause in the community overall would ultimately be harmful to the ultimate acceptance of the issue. I think she was right, as much as I want to throw the middle finger. I loved that she even thought of it, considering that when I told her my kid was attending kindergarten as a boy—days before the school year started—she'd never encountered a trans kid or thought about the issue before. Her open-mindedness was exemplary.
My son is full-on binary, all boy. The principal told me recently that she's concerned about an older boy in the school whose gender presentation is very feminine. I love that her experience with my son led her to keep an eye out for other gender-non-conforming kids, and to make it her business to think about how best to serve them within the school. If all educators were like her the world would be a better place.
posted by not that girl at 3:11 PM on November 3, 2015 [19 favorites]
The principal at my trans son's elementary school considered this, but felt the trouble it would cause in the community overall would ultimately be harmful to the ultimate acceptance of the issue. I think she was right, as much as I want to throw the middle finger. I loved that she even thought of it, considering that when I told her my kid was attending kindergarten as a boy—days before the school year started—she'd never encountered a trans kid or thought about the issue before. Her open-mindedness was exemplary.
My son is full-on binary, all boy. The principal told me recently that she's concerned about an older boy in the school whose gender presentation is very feminine. I love that her experience with my son led her to keep an eye out for other gender-non-conforming kids, and to make it her business to think about how best to serve them within the school. If all educators were like her the world would be a better place.
posted by not that girl at 3:11 PM on November 3, 2015 [19 favorites]
. Lockerrooms are really problematic spaces for student-on-student harassment and assault; for students having consensual sex; and for drugs. And other shenanigans. It's probably legally negligent not to have a staff member supervising the students changing clothes. Doubtless this can be done with separate changing cubicles but there are a variety of cost and staff issues that would come up as a practical matter.)
Don't they all have closed toilet cubicles? If not then OMGWTF, if so then...how is that OK and closed changing cubicles isn't?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 4:25 PM on November 3, 2015
Don't they all have closed toilet cubicles? If not then OMGWTF, if so then...how is that OK and closed changing cubicles isn't?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 4:25 PM on November 3, 2015
Back in the 80s we'd all piss in the trough
those were the days
posted by Oktober at 4:36 PM on November 3, 2015
those were the days
posted by Oktober at 4:36 PM on November 3, 2015
the agents of KAOS: "Don't they all have closed toilet cubicles? If not then OMGWTF, if so then...how is that OK and closed changing cubicles isn't?"
They do have closed toilet cubicles, but a high school of 1600 students with 8 periods a day is trying to process 200 students -- 100 girls -- through the lockerroom every 45 minutes, in less than 5 minutes (from unlocking their locker to being changed and in the gym ready to run). A school that size typically has 3-4 bathroom stalls in the lockerroom (I KNOW SO MUCH SCHOOL FACILITY TRIVIA!); 100 changing cubicles would obviously cost a lot more than 4 bathroom stalls. Even if we estimate that every student can change in about a minute, that's 25 changing cubicles.
OBVIOUSLY the solution is a FEW changing cubicles for the kids who want them, which apparently District 211 made available, but the question here is REQUIRING the student to use such a cubicle, which District 211 wanted to do.
Even if 100 separate changing cubicles were feasible to built cost-wise -- which it totally may be! -- we need to be clear that there's a trade-off in the amount of time and money it takes to supervise, clean, and police those cubicles. Kids will forget expensive things in them, they'll graffiti the walls, they'll try to have sex in them, they'll hide pot in them, they'll try to shove another kid into one to punch them. That doesn't make it impossible to do! But we do have to be clear that we're talking about teenagers and that private spaces in high schools are problematic both because of "in loco parentis" sorts of concerns about sex and drugs, AND because of "kids unsupervised can turn really vicious" concerns about straight-up violence and assault. And it all has to be cleaned and maintained on a tight budget. I'm not saying separate cubicles can't or shouldn't be done (school officials are way too willing to say "we've never done it that way, let's not try"), I'm just saying it's more complicated than adults at a gym, in terms of logistics and in terms of supervision.
I've been mentally trying to retrofit some of our older lockerrooms for greater student privacy while thinking about this thread today, and it's not an easy problem to accommodate the volume of students necessary while also providing privacy (without expanding the non-instructional areas of the building beyond what seems reasonable). I can definitely think of some things to try to provide at least OPTIONAL privacy for MORE students, but I can also think of more pressing needs for the money that any conversion would cost. (Literally the best case scenario for lockerroom renovations is, if the school CATCHES ON FIRE, you get fire insurance money to spend on renovating non-instructional areas without having to try to get a bond issued. And students love to set fires in lockerrooms! Another cubicle problem.) I'm also totally positive that I don't have even half the ideas about this that are out there, and that if you asked school architects (in particular), they'd have a dozen great ideas, of varying cost and feasibility.
(Also in the South -- and this is in some Judy Blume books I think -- it was somewhat common to have open school bathroom stalls -- no doors -- in the 50s and 60s, partly for oversight reasons. Not so common today. But sometimes -- even in other parts of the country -- when you visit older schools, the retrofitting of the stalls to have doors is obvious. I was in a 1930s-built park the other day with my kids, and went to the ladies room in an old park facilities building that was built by the CCC, and the 1930s-built ladies room had only partitions, no doors, for the toilets. It was set up in sort-of a maze-y way so it wasn't easy for people to see you peeing without trying to, but they STILL COULD. VERY UPSETTING. But people were just less private about bathroom nudity then and doors were less common in public bathrooms.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:50 PM on November 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
They do have closed toilet cubicles, but a high school of 1600 students with 8 periods a day is trying to process 200 students -- 100 girls -- through the lockerroom every 45 minutes, in less than 5 minutes (from unlocking their locker to being changed and in the gym ready to run). A school that size typically has 3-4 bathroom stalls in the lockerroom (I KNOW SO MUCH SCHOOL FACILITY TRIVIA!); 100 changing cubicles would obviously cost a lot more than 4 bathroom stalls. Even if we estimate that every student can change in about a minute, that's 25 changing cubicles.
OBVIOUSLY the solution is a FEW changing cubicles for the kids who want them, which apparently District 211 made available, but the question here is REQUIRING the student to use such a cubicle, which District 211 wanted to do.
Even if 100 separate changing cubicles were feasible to built cost-wise -- which it totally may be! -- we need to be clear that there's a trade-off in the amount of time and money it takes to supervise, clean, and police those cubicles. Kids will forget expensive things in them, they'll graffiti the walls, they'll try to have sex in them, they'll hide pot in them, they'll try to shove another kid into one to punch them. That doesn't make it impossible to do! But we do have to be clear that we're talking about teenagers and that private spaces in high schools are problematic both because of "in loco parentis" sorts of concerns about sex and drugs, AND because of "kids unsupervised can turn really vicious" concerns about straight-up violence and assault. And it all has to be cleaned and maintained on a tight budget. I'm not saying separate cubicles can't or shouldn't be done (school officials are way too willing to say "we've never done it that way, let's not try"), I'm just saying it's more complicated than adults at a gym, in terms of logistics and in terms of supervision.
I've been mentally trying to retrofit some of our older lockerrooms for greater student privacy while thinking about this thread today, and it's not an easy problem to accommodate the volume of students necessary while also providing privacy (without expanding the non-instructional areas of the building beyond what seems reasonable). I can definitely think of some things to try to provide at least OPTIONAL privacy for MORE students, but I can also think of more pressing needs for the money that any conversion would cost. (Literally the best case scenario for lockerroom renovations is, if the school CATCHES ON FIRE, you get fire insurance money to spend on renovating non-instructional areas without having to try to get a bond issued. And students love to set fires in lockerrooms! Another cubicle problem.) I'm also totally positive that I don't have even half the ideas about this that are out there, and that if you asked school architects (in particular), they'd have a dozen great ideas, of varying cost and feasibility.
(Also in the South -- and this is in some Judy Blume books I think -- it was somewhat common to have open school bathroom stalls -- no doors -- in the 50s and 60s, partly for oversight reasons. Not so common today. But sometimes -- even in other parts of the country -- when you visit older schools, the retrofitting of the stalls to have doors is obvious. I was in a 1930s-built park the other day with my kids, and went to the ladies room in an old park facilities building that was built by the CCC, and the 1930s-built ladies room had only partitions, no doors, for the toilets. It was set up in sort-of a maze-y way so it wasn't easy for people to see you peeing without trying to, but they STILL COULD. VERY UPSETTING. But people were just less private about bathroom nudity then and doors were less common in public bathrooms.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:50 PM on November 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: "100 changing cubicles would obviously cost a lot more than 4 bathroom stalls. "
On reflection, I'm not sure this is obvious. It seems LIKELY, but bathrooms require plumbing, which changing cubicles would not; they might be very inexpensive especially if you could construct them out of curtains or something. You'd have to have an actual architect run actual numbers. However, the space and "aisle access" requirements of separate changing cubicles are still pretty daunting for the number of students required.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:12 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
On reflection, I'm not sure this is obvious. It seems LIKELY, but bathrooms require plumbing, which changing cubicles would not; they might be very inexpensive especially if you could construct them out of curtains or something. You'd have to have an actual architect run actual numbers. However, the space and "aisle access" requirements of separate changing cubicles are still pretty daunting for the number of students required.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:12 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Thanks! Your explanations about school facilities and logistics and everything are always fascinating to read.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 5:31 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by the agents of KAOS at 5:31 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think bathroom and locker-room bills serve the same purpose that marriage bills did 20 years ago. First, they get cultural conservatives riled up over marginal and superficial progress. Then, overly-broad bills get pushed through as a legal pretext to justify discrimination.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:58 PM on November 3, 2015
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:58 PM on November 3, 2015
Bigots have lost the fight against teh gayz so they just found another group that people don't understand. I don't believe that most of the politicians even believe the fearmongering they peddle. I do believe this backlash can be overcome by increased education and coming out, but I fear it's going to get a lot worse in the meantime while we're in the crosshairs. Early vote results for HERO are completely dismal.
posted by desjardins at 6:18 PM on November 3, 2015
posted by desjardins at 6:18 PM on November 3, 2015
The ACLU link sheds the light on the "shared nudity" concern.
posted by alms at 7:00 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
The OCR [Office of Civil Rights] process involved looking at the school facilities and interviewing coaches, gym teachers, and other staff. OCR staff tell us that (as we already knew) girls do not fully undress when getting ready for gym, some choose to dress in restroom stalls, and girls do not shower after gym (other than after swimming) or many of the sports activities. OCR explored options, including the installation of additional privacy curtains for students who want some extra privacy when dressing or showering.Lots of kerfuffle could have been saved in the news reports mentioned these simple facts. There is not much full nudity, and there are options for privacy for any who does not want to see or be seen by others. There, done.
posted by alms at 7:00 PM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hearing that open changing areas are supposedly for supervision comes across to me as completely out of touch with reality, based on my high school experience.
Mine as well. It was almost the reverse -- the open changing areas meant that bullying could happen with as big an audience as possible, sometimes including the gym staff. It was awful, and I wasn't even usually a target, but the environment was one of intense vulnerability. Normally there were no adults present at all, but when they were present if anything it intensified the bullying.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:41 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mine as well. It was almost the reverse -- the open changing areas meant that bullying could happen with as big an audience as possible, sometimes including the gym staff. It was awful, and I wasn't even usually a target, but the environment was one of intense vulnerability. Normally there were no adults present at all, but when they were present if anything it intensified the bullying.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:41 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is why presidential elections matter.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:51 PM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:51 PM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think bathroom and locker-room bills serve the same purpose that marriage bills did 20 years ago.
How quickly we forget... The last round of that was 2004.
In any case, backlash is why I have such qualms about people having suddenly discovered trans issues. There's some tradeoff between increased awareness and being able to make progress because no one is paying attention to you. On the other hand, I graduated from a suburban Chicago high school ten years ago and it would have been unthinkable for a student to be out as trans, never mind take on the school with the help of the Illinois ACLU, so... I suppose part of being a good ally is judging when you need to keep your mouth shut and not trumpet fragile progress.
(Also, the Illinois ACLU has been working on trans stuff for a while now. They're not doing the "oh, we suddenly like trans people now" thing. I'm not sure how they got started, but they spent about four years suing the state over birth certificates before winning a couple of years ago. Well, spent about four years winning before a judge put their foot down and stopped believing the state's claims they were changing the rules "soon".)
posted by hoyland at 4:26 AM on November 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
How quickly we forget... The last round of that was 2004.
In any case, backlash is why I have such qualms about people having suddenly discovered trans issues. There's some tradeoff between increased awareness and being able to make progress because no one is paying attention to you. On the other hand, I graduated from a suburban Chicago high school ten years ago and it would have been unthinkable for a student to be out as trans, never mind take on the school with the help of the Illinois ACLU, so... I suppose part of being a good ally is judging when you need to keep your mouth shut and not trumpet fragile progress.
(Also, the Illinois ACLU has been working on trans stuff for a while now. They're not doing the "oh, we suddenly like trans people now" thing. I'm not sure how they got started, but they spent about four years suing the state over birth certificates before winning a couple of years ago. Well, spent about four years winning before a judge put their foot down and stopped believing the state's claims they were changing the rules "soon".)
posted by hoyland at 4:26 AM on November 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Let me tell you, as a burgeoning queer kid, locker rooms were a mixture of OH WOW GUYS IN UNDERWEAR and absolute pants-shitting terror. I would have cheerfully given up an organ for a totally private way to change and shower. This group changing thing is for the birds. Given that (in my experience) nobody in gym class ever showered (after school sports teams were a different thing, and even there in retrospect it was SUPER easy to pick out the "stuck in Narnia right now, will come screaming out three seconds after graduation" guys by who would avoid showering with everyone else by hook or by crook), all you need is separate changing cubicles leading onto a common area that a teacher is supervising.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:16 AM on November 4, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:16 AM on November 4, 2015
If anyone wants further technical reading, here are some recent notes from the NCTE about Obama admin input (copied from a PDF - apologies if I missed some weirdness):
Educationposted by Corinth at 3:19 AM on November 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
- Gender identity discrimination is sex discrimination.
- Students have the right to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity.
- Students have the right to class placements and overnight accommodations based on their gender identity.
- Discriminatory discipline is unlawful.
• Title IX Resource Guide, April 2015-
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-title-ix-coordinators-guide-201504.pdf
• DOJ Statements of Interest in Tooley v. van Buren Schools and G.G. v. Gloucester Schools, 2015:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/02/27/tooleysoi.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/07/09/gloucestersoi.pdf
• Arcadia School District policy (approved by DOJ & ED under resolution agreement), April 2015:
http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Transgender-Policy-Bulletin-Approved-w-corrections-April-2015.pdf
• Arcadia & Downey Unified School Districts resolution agreements, 2013 and 2014:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/07/26/arcadiaagree.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/downey-school-district-agreement.pdf
• See also: Schools in Transition: A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools:
http://nclrights.org/schoolsintransition
Two women fired by a Houston-area daycare say their rights were violated when they were terminated for refusing to accept the transgender child of a gay couple, and ProjectQ reports they’re threatening to file a federal lawsuit.
posted by Corinth at 10:09 AM on November 12, 2015
posted by Corinth at 10:09 AM on November 12, 2015
hoyland: "Also, the Illinois ACLU has been working on trans stuff for a while now. They're not doing the "oh, we suddenly like trans people now" thing. I'm not sure how they got started, but they spent about four years suing the state over birth certificates before winning a couple of years ago."
They've been at it for at LEAST 12 years; they work relatively closely with Illinois's chapter of Lambda Legal on issues of mutual interest, and Lambda Legal in Illinois has been advocating for trans rights in Illinois for at least that long. Different tactics at different times, of course; both were pouring a lot of energy and resources into the Illinois marriage equality fight and after that was won, a lot of that bandwidth was freed up for other issues, which I think is why some trans rights issues in Illinois have been getting more attention. But Lambda Legal had trans rights advocacy programs going way back in 2002ish.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:41 AM on November 12, 2015
They've been at it for at LEAST 12 years; they work relatively closely with Illinois's chapter of Lambda Legal on issues of mutual interest, and Lambda Legal in Illinois has been advocating for trans rights in Illinois for at least that long. Different tactics at different times, of course; both were pouring a lot of energy and resources into the Illinois marriage equality fight and after that was won, a lot of that bandwidth was freed up for other issues, which I think is why some trans rights issues in Illinois have been getting more attention. But Lambda Legal had trans rights advocacy programs going way back in 2002ish.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:41 AM on November 12, 2015
The key thing, though, is that the IL-ACLU didn't make trans people take a back seat to marriage.* (Lambda Legal generally didn't either, though I think they got a bit bogged down in marriage for a bit.) I believe the birth certificate lawsuits started before marriage was getting any traction in Illinois, when whats-his-name was doing the annual (or biennial?) "introduce a marriage bill to make a point" thing and someone (same person?) would occasionally introduce a bill changing the birth certificate rules. It just took enough lawsuits that civil unions had happened before the birth certificate rules actually changed.
(I do suspect, though, that abolishing the death penalty probably gave a boost to many of the IL-ACLU's endeavours.)
In case the Illinois thing is getting too inside baseball for people who aren't Eyebrows McGee, Illinois used to require (unspecified) genital surgery to change a birth certificate. What this meant in practice was that they were finding creative ways to refuse to change birth certificates, especially for men (as far as anyone could tell, they were only accepting a surgery that's very uncommon for Americans). Then they started getting sued. They'd lose, be ordered to change the birth certificates of the plaintiffs, escape being ordered to change the rules (I think by saying they would) and then do nothing. After a few rounds of this, a judge demanded someone state under oath that they were actually changing the rules. Thus came the "surgery, but no specific surgery"requirement, which is still problematic, but at least put an end to the bullshit of the invisible moving goal posts.
*There's a whole question of "are birth certificates the marriage of trans rights", but let's leave that aside (after the next two sentences, anyway). It doesn't matter a whole lot what your birth certificate says if you're liable to be killed for being trans. A birth certificate also doesn't mean whatever government agency you're interacting with will acknowledge you gender.
posted by hoyland at 4:48 AM on November 13, 2015
(I do suspect, though, that abolishing the death penalty probably gave a boost to many of the IL-ACLU's endeavours.)
In case the Illinois thing is getting too inside baseball for people who aren't Eyebrows McGee, Illinois used to require (unspecified) genital surgery to change a birth certificate. What this meant in practice was that they were finding creative ways to refuse to change birth certificates, especially for men (as far as anyone could tell, they were only accepting a surgery that's very uncommon for Americans). Then they started getting sued. They'd lose, be ordered to change the birth certificates of the plaintiffs, escape being ordered to change the rules (I think by saying they would) and then do nothing. After a few rounds of this, a judge demanded someone state under oath that they were actually changing the rules. Thus came the "surgery, but no specific surgery"requirement, which is still problematic, but at least put an end to the bullshit of the invisible moving goal posts.
*There's a whole question of "are birth certificates the marriage of trans rights", but let's leave that aside (after the next two sentences, anyway). It doesn't matter a whole lot what your birth certificate says if you're liable to be killed for being trans. A birth certificate also doesn't mean whatever government agency you're interacting with will acknowledge you gender.
posted by hoyland at 4:48 AM on November 13, 2015
« Older not the Total Hell Sandwich I'd sort of expected | The first time you break tradition is the hardest... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by SansPoint at 11:19 AM on November 3, 2015 [15 favorites]