Westerly School Committee votes down anti-transgender student athlete policy
 |
| Westerly is ready to compete |
Asked for his professional opinion, the School Committee
Attorney, William Nardone, was unequivocal in his opposition: “…one
of my roles in this position, probably my most important role, is to keep you
out of trouble as opposed to getting you out once you get yourselves in. This
is a perfect example of my opportunity to attempt to keep you from getting into
some trouble.”
The effort to discriminate against transgender, gender
diverse, and transitioning students seems to be led by a small group of
bigoted Christian Nationalists, with the support of Committee member Wycall, who seems desperate to pass something that will somehow fit into Rhode
Island’s strong laws protecting the rights of LGBTQIA+ students, while also
discriminating against them. Unfortunately for Committee member Wycall, there is
no squaring this circle. Any effort to pass and enforce such a policy would be
bigoted, discriminatory, and against the law.
The Westerly School Committee has been wrestling with this
right-wing manufactured “controversy” for months, even years. Even after the
policy’s definitive rejection in last night’s meeting, proponents of
discrimination promised to keep taking shots at it.
Here’s the relevant video from Wednesday’s Westerly
School Committee meeting:
“I thought that the draft policy that Dr. Garceau came up with was perfect,” said Committee member Wycall. “I think we all need to say that boys stay in boys’ sports teams and girls stay on girls’ sports teams. It’s about truth, fairness, and safety.”
Committee member Wycall then suggested two changes to the
“perfect” draft policy, but the policy never made it that far. Instead, the
School Committee wisely voted it down.
“I think this policy language is actually far from perfect,
and I believe it’s illegal because it discriminates against student athletes
based on gender identity,” said Committee member Angela Goethels.
“The issue that I take with this policy is that it is
presented as being about safety,” said Committee Chair Leslie Dunn “If
the real concern is about our kids safety and sports, then we should be opening
up our protocols around concussions, hits, injuries, and our requirements and
prerequisites for coaching because we know that those things directly impact
our participating students
“I take issue with it because of the way things are defined.
It’s intended to deprive students of the opportunity to participate in sports
with their peers. I also believe this puts our children in jeopardy. If they
reach a tournament or athletic event and are told they can’t play [because
there is a transgender student on the opposing team], we have to forfeit.
“I feel like [this policy] puts us in a dangerous situation,
that, as much as we’re saying, ‘We’re not discriminating against anybody,’
we’re putting a trans student in a position where, if they come forward and say
they want to participate in one of these sports, we’re going to have to tell
them, ‘No,’” continued Committee Chair Dunn. “Quite frankly, that’s damaging to
our students, damaging to our student population, and doesn’t create a
welcoming environment for the students of Westerly Public Schools.”
Attorney William Nardone presented a lengthy analysis of the
problematic policy and recommended rejecting it.
“As I’ve said to you on many occasions, one of my roles in
this position, probably my most important role, is to keep you out of trouble
as opposed to getting you out once you get yourselves in. This is a perfect
example of how I can help you avoid getting into trouble. I spent much of today
reviewing the recent case that Superior Court Judge Joseph McBurney decided
with respect to pieces of what we’re discussing tonight… In reliance on that
decision, my advice to you will be, ‘Do not approve this policy.’ Plain and
simple. ‘Don’t approve it.’”
Attorney Nardone continued:
“One of the underlying issues in that case, which is now the
current state of the law in Rhode Island, is the definition of ‘sex.’ Sex is
not defined in the Rhode Island General Laws with respect to Title 16381.1. The
parties in the case disagreed on whether the term ‘sex’ includes gender, gender
identity, gender expression, and related terms. The case goes on to engage in a
detailed discussion of statutory construction. Typically, statutes are
interpreted by giving words their plain and ordinary meaning, as understood at
the time the statute was written. These statutes were enacted in 1983 and 1985.
As I think we can all agree, society has evolved significantly since then and
continues to evolve, as do the meanings of many words, sex being one of them.
“… It isn’t just male versus female and physical attributes.
[Judge McBurney] concluded that the term ‘sex’ is ambiguous. It may have had a
plain, clear meaning, but it no longer does. When a term in a statute is
determined to be ambiguous… it isn’t simply the plain and ordinary meaning. The
term has been [determined], in this decision, to include different kinds of
behavior, reactions, and discussions resulting in the use of phrases such as
‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ et cetera.
… Fast forward a little bit. Based upon that determination, it was concluded in
this case that the term has a very broad meaning and includes gender, gender
identity, gender expression, sexual expression, and various other terms used
currently in the discussion of this particular topic.
“Recognizing that the term is ambiguous, it was concluded,
in the case as part of the decision, that the term ‘sex’ includes those other
phrases that I mentioned without going through all of them again… So,
discrimination based on sex, although it didn’t specifically list all those
other terms, refers to them as well. It’s included in the discussion. There’s a
Supreme Court case, Bostock v.
Clayton County, and the judge said that phrases, including the term
gender, are inextricably linked to the word sex. You can’t separate them.
“So as society evolved, so did that definition, and the
conclusion in this case is that the definition is broad enough so that those
terms, although not specifically set forth, are included.
“With respect to the Title IX question, Title IX is a
federal act, you’re correct, but Title IX does not include any preemption.
Title IX cannot affect an existing state act, regulation, policy, or protocol
as long as that regulation has been properly formed and properly approved by
the appropriate authority. [Judge McBurney’s decision] went into significant
detail about the authority of the Commissioner of Education. That was another
significant issue in this case. The explanation went back to the Rhode Island
Constitution, which gives everyone the entitlement to education. It was then
that authority was delegated to the legislature, and the legislature granted
that authority to an agency, such as the Department of Education, and
the commissioner obtains that authority through the agency that’s properly
created.
“…the conclusion was that the commissioner had all of the
authority necessary to enact the regulations that have been enacted.
[The decision] “also referenced [Presidential] Executive
Orders, one by President Biden attempting to include the term ‘gender identity’
and some other phrase as part of the definition of sex. That Executive Order
was overturned by President Trump’s Executive Order. Now, if you recall, you
asked me to explain Executive Orders a month or so ago. In that explanation, I
indicated that Executive Orders pertain to federal agencies. They cannot
overturn existing state law or regulation.
“So again, after review and analysis, my conclusion is that
this proposed policy would lead you down a very slippery slope, and the best
advice I can give you is do not approve it. I typically don’t tell you how to
vote, but in this case, it’s preemptive. It will save you from many problems.”
Committee member Angela Goethals attempted to gently correct Committee member Joe Jackson’s use of the word “transgenderism.”
“As a point of clarity, Mr. Jackson, the word
‘transgenderism’ is a term of hate, and it implies that transgender people ...”
There was an interruption here from someone in the small
group of Christian Nationalists present.
“Can we not make comments?” said Committee Chair Dunn.
“Let me just remind you,” said Attorney Nardone, “This is
not a public hearing. This is a school committee meeting, and this is currently
a topic for school committee discussion.”
“Point of clarity,” continued Committee member Goethels,
“‘transgenderism’ implies that we’re talking about an ideology rather than an
identity, and it’s an important distinction. It’s not a term that should be
used by this committee or anyone in this community.”
“I guess that goes to show that even when you try to be
respectful, you end up screwing up half the time,” said Committee member Jackson. “My apologies. I did not intend any disrespect with that word. I can’t
keep up with what’s an insult these days, to be completely honest.”
Attorney Nardone’s explanation did not fully persuade Committee member Wycall. “You’re telling me that state law dictates that we
cannot have a policy saying boys play on boys’ teams and girls play on girls’
teams?”
“I’m not telling you that state law says that. I’m telling
you this policy is not appropriate to pass, and it will only further complicate
an already complex issue and put the committee at some degree of risk,” said
Attorney Nardon.
“Do we reword it so that it is not putting us at risk?”
asked Committee member Wycall. “Can you word it in a way that won’t put us at
risk?”
“Frankly, I haven’t considered rewording it,” answered
Attorney Nardone. “My conclusion stands. I take direction from the committee. I
work for the committee. However, my advice is you don’t need a policy.”
“I will seek a motion to reject the athletic eligibility
policy that’s been presented tonight,” said Committee Chair Dunn. “Any
discussion?”
“There are varying legal analyses of the case that Mr.
Nurdone is referring to,” persisted Committee member Wycall. “And I think it’s a
sad state of affairs when a state can tell us that we can’t follow what I
consider to be common sense, fairness, and safety, having boys play boys’
sports and girls play girls’ sports. This is a pretty sad state of affairs, in
my opinion.”
The motion to reject the policy passed 6-1, with only Committee member Wycall dissenting.
The vote was followed by public comment, which, let’s face
it, is essentially the same tired Christian Nationalist drivel I’ve reported on
time and again over the last few years, so please excuse me if I decline to
transcribe it. If you’re interested, you can watch it at this link.
I will present the testimony of Westerly resident Diane
Goldsmith, who has tirelessly attended these school committee meetings to
defend the rights of transgender, gender-diverse, and transistioning students,
and of Westerly Town Councilmember Alex Healy.
“First of all, thank you. Thank you for the vote,” said
Goldsmith. “I want to echo [Committee Chair LeslieDunn]. If safety were the
concern, then let’s get rid of football. We should be playing flag football.
And if you want to look at the data for the concussions, brain injuries, and
brain damage, we have a lot of data on that, starting from high school.”
Goldsmith continued:
“This is not about safety… We are talking about a minuscule
number of trans athletes. The only data I can get is from Utah. Utah has 75,000
high school kids playing sports. We have about 30-something thousand in Rhode
Island. In 2024, Utah had one transgender girl playing one. How much threat is
one transgender girl?
“No transgender athlete in high school has ever been awarded
a Division I scholarship. Zero. Not one, zero. No transgender athlete is taking
scholarships away from anyone.
“And lastly, if a basketball team walks into a gym and
there’s a six-foot-two girl playing center, is that person more dangerous, and
is that situation less fair, than the five-foot-six transgender kid sitting on
the bench? It’s not logical. We talk about logic and fairness. Body types vary
among us.
“I know this is too much to ask, but I hope these
mean-spirited policies are over. I hope we can end this conversation, which has
taken up far too much time, and return to topics like assessments and how our
students are doing in math, science, and literature.
“Thank you for your vote.”
“I really just hope that this can go to bed,” said
Councilmember Healy. “We’ve seen this charade… It’s the same faces, and it’s
the same thing in this big circle of Twilight Zone or
craziness ... I’m going to ask you if you could take this energy and put it
into a couple of other different things, something that would really help keep
our girls safe in school: Provide all the types of sanitary items for all girls
for free.”
Councilmember Healy continued:
“That shouldn’t be something that they have to worry about.
No matter their background or income, they should feel comfortable.
“Something that can also affect every single student,
100.0%, is lunch and breakfast. If we could switch gears here a little bit and
take the passion we all have, it doesn’t matter what side we’re on; we’re all
clearly very passionate about children and the success of those children. One
thing that will really help them is a full belly in the morning and in the
afternoon. For many of those students, we know this is a sad state: lunch is
their last meal of the day, if they can get it. Sometimes parents who make good
money earn it by working three jobs, and they’re not home to make a warm
dinner.
“I want to thank your solicitor. I know that this is a hard topic, and I do not have a legal background, but that [explanation] made a lot of sense to me. I saw [the proposed policy] as a pretty big legal landmine of discrimination. I know there is language that some want to tweak. Let’s pump the brakes and focus on everyone, please. Thank you, guys, for your vote. I hope you guys all have a great day and night, and a wonderful holiday if you celebrate.”
SteveAhlquist.news is a reader-supported publication. To
receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid
subscriber.
