The defense of transgender student rights shifts, once again, to the Westerly School Committee
Dozens of people attended the August 19 meeting of the Westerly School Committee to advocate against agenda item 12d, “Request of Counsel to seek written opinion from Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office regarding SCOTUS Decision as to transgender athletes.” The decision is West Virginia v. B.P.J., in which the United States Supreme Court upheld state laws, such as West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” that banned or restricted transgender women athletes from participating in women’s school sports teams on a 6-3 vote.
You can watch the relevant parts of the School Committee
meeting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltJLTv1o0g8
“You folks who came to the mic tonight wondering who put this item on the agenda,” said Westerly School Committee member Peter Nero. “It was me. The reason I put it on the agenda is that I want final clarity on where Rhode Island law stands, and I want the Attorney General to put that in writing, because I don’t want to have any more of these long nights… Bottom line: I wanted clarity on this so we don’t have more meetings like this, and we put an end to this now. That’s why it’s on the agenda.”
The long nights Committee member Nero is referring to are
likely the meetings where the school committee takes up potential changes to
their Transgender,
Gender Nonconforming & Transitioning Students Protocol and a
large number of people fill the room to advocate for transgender student
rights.
Committee member Timothy Killam seemed
exasperated. He wanted to talk about what he considered the positive things
happening in Westerly, like the opening of a new school in a couple of weeks.
“Why are we going around in circles about this instead of talking about some
forward progress? In my opinion, we have a protocol in place. We don’t have a
problem right now. Why are we taking the time about this?”
Committee member Killam sought to assure the people in the
room that they had misunderstood the agenda and that nothing would be decided
during the meeting. “I want you all to understand: if you read the agenda,
we’re not voting on anything today,” said Committee member Killam. “That was
never on the agenda. And if you interpreted it that way, you are incorrect. No
vote is being taken tonight. Period. There is not. It was simply a statement to
ask for something in writing.”
Seventeen minutes later, the School Committee voted 4 to 3
against seeking an opinion from the Attorney General. Later in the meeting,
Committee member Angela Goethels apologized for her yes vote,
saying that upon further reflection she was against it.
Ahead of the vote, when asked about seeking a written
opinion from the R.I. Attorney General’s Office about the status of the State
Law regarding transgender students, Attorney William Nardone said,
“I’m not sure what you want me to ask the Attorney General. If you want me to
ask him for ‘his opinion on a decision,’ frankly, I would be embarrassed to
send that letter to the Attorney General…”
The “clarity” desired by Committee member Nero doesn’t
exist, opined Attorney Jennifer Wood, who has decades of legal
expertise in the education space.
“I wasn’t going to comment tonight because I saw that you
didn’t have an agenda item that you were voting on this evening - although it
ended up being voted on - and I didn’t want to attenuate further what has been
a painful and difficult conversation for your committee over several evenings,”
said Attorney Wood. “And I definitely never wanted to discourage anyone from
seeking an opinion from the Attorney General. I would never be so arrogant as
to suggest that that should not be done.
“I appreciate the desire for clarity and finality on this
issue that this committee and that a lot of others in the community are
yearning for. I am here to share the bad news that it is not yet available. [In
the] West Virginia v. BPJ case, the Supreme Court ruled
narrowly on one aspect of the issue that relates to transgender athletes’
participation in sports. But on page three of the decision, in footnote number
one, it’s quite straightforward: Brett Kavanaugh, writing the
majority opinion says, [paraphrasing] ‘We’re not deciding most of this issue in
this decision. All we’re saying is that the 27 states who have state law that
permits the exclusion of transgender women in women’s sports, they can do that.
And the 23 states that do not have state law, and among them, Rhode Island,
states that permit the participation of students in sports teams that are
aligned to their gender identity can also do that. We’re not opining on that
today. We weren’t asked to; it’s not in the case, and we’re not doing that.’
Then they, in the footnote, the court further excludes: We’re not talking about
trans men participating in men’s sports.
“So the clarity and finality that I think everyone wants
isn’t there.”
Public Testimony
Public testimony lasted over an hour. Every person who spoke
was there in defense of transgender students. Here are some excerpts, edited
for clarity:


.webp)



















