Culture war pounds on
Adriana Vossari, RI & Local Government
A Chariho Regional School Committee member's request for a
paid legal opinion on prohibiting "biological males from participating in
biological female sports" failed at Tuesday's meeting, with only three
members raising their hands in support.
According to the school committee's published meeting
recording, the request came during the meeting's final item, when the chair
asked members for future agenda items or legal opinions. A member said he
wanted an agenda item to implement such a policy "in accordance with the
recent United States Supreme Court decision." He also asked for a legal
opinion on whether that federal decision overrides Rhode Island law, saying,
"I think that federalism trumps Rhode Island law."
The committee, which oversees schools serving Richmond,
Hopkinton and Charlestown, did not adopt or debate any policy language. Only
the request for a legal opinion was put to a vote.
What the chair said. Ryan Callahan, the committee's chair, responded that the proposal "would be in direct violation of Rhode Island law and RIDE," referring to the Rhode Island Department of Education. "You would like to put a policy in place or discuss one that would put us in the crosshairs of our governing bodies," he said, adding that he would take the matter offline and that the district operates within "guard rails."
Callahan explained the procedural step for readers who may
not follow committee mechanics: because a legal opinion from the district's
attorney costs money, the committee must vote to authorize the expense. He also
said he would not vote for the request as framed. "I think I know the
answer and I know the repercussions that our district would face should we go
down that route," he said.
Before the vote, Callahan suggested a different sequence —
that the requesting member draft actual policy language the committee could
review, rather than ask counsel an open-ended question. "You can't just
kind of amorphously ask," he said. Jessica Purcell said the committee
should first obtain a copy of what Rhode Island law says.
Another member, Craig Louzon, remarked that the exchange was
"turning into quite a discussion" for an item that was not itself on
the agenda.
On a show of hands, the chair counted three in favor of
seeking the legal opinion, a larger number opposed and one abstention. "We
will not pursue a legal opinion at this time," Callahan said. No numeric
total for the opposition was announced from the table.
The ruling being cited. The Supreme Court
decision referenced was issued June 30, 2026. It held that Title IX — the 1972
federal law barring sex discrimination in education — permits states to reserve
girls' and women's school teams for biological females, and that the challenged
state restrictions did not violate equal protection. The ruling left states
free to adopt such bans; it did not require any district to do so. Rhode Island
education and civil-rights rules apply separately to local districts.
Public forum. The request followed public forum
comments. A Westerly resident told the committee the ruling was "a giant
win for fairness and truth," argued that states permitting transgender
girls to play are themselves out of compliance with Title IX, and urged the
committee to "get this on your next agenda" before the school year
"gets too old." He warned of investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice, said another Rhode Island district is already under scrutiny, and
criticized the district's superintendent and Louzon by name.
A Hopkinton resident spoke against that position, calling
the campaign "a farce, distraction from the actual boring, unglamorous
work of building girls sports in this state." He said Title IX "did
not ban anyone from anything" but required equal investment in girls'
programs, and argued the real threat to girls' athletics is budget cutting,
because newer girls' teams are first on the chopping block. He described
spending roughly a decade working to establish middle school girls' soccer, and
said it "really hurts when someone is trying to fight to deny any one
student the opportunity to play sports."
Callahan opened public forum with a caution about the
previous meeting, when he said speakers named administrators and stated things
that "weren't factually accurate." He said he does not intend to
police speech in real time, but reminded speakers that comments entered into
the public record can expose them to defamation claims. Speaking time was
limited to three minutes each.
Similar pressure has reached other districts; a Westerly
panel rejected
an Attorney General request on transgender athletes after hours of
testimony.
What's next. No policy on the subject was placed
on a future agenda, and no
legal opinion was authorized. A member may renew the request at a later
meeting; the chair invited draft policy language as a starting point. The
committee's next meeting is scheduled for September 22.
This story was sourced from the complete transcript of
the meeting. While we make every effort to ensure accuracy, the possibility of
transcription errors could lead to inaccuracies.
