If you’re a keen watcher of LGBT news you may have been following the story over the past few weeks about a gay-straight alliance club (GSA) in South Carolina; now is your chance to get involved and help these students out.
When the principal of Irmo High School announced his resignation over the formation of a GSA at his school, it made headlines. Now, even though gay-straight alliances are protected by federal law and can be found at over 2,000 high schools throughout the nation, the school board of District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties has proposed a new clubs policy that would discourage students from joining the GSA and restrict the activities of many clubs.
The proposal would create a complicated and legally questionable new structure for how the district treats clubs by attempting to distinguish between “school-sponsored” and “non-curricular” clubs. The new policy would also require students to get signed parental permission forms for any clubs they want to join. You can read the entire policy by from the board website — the proposed policy is on pages 58-65.
Before the board votes on this new policy at its June 23 meeting, it is seeking input from the public. You can be sure they’re going to be hearing plenty from people who are against any sort of protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students and their allies. Students from the GSA are asking all supporters of school safety and fairness for all students to send letters to members of the school board. Letters from students, parents, and alumni of schools in South Carolina, especially District Five, are particularly important.
What to say:
- Tell the board that you oppose the proposed new clubs policy for District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties.
- Tell them that you support the GSA and the right of all students to be treated with fairness and respect.
- Tell them the proposed policy is unnecessary, would create a huge administrative burden for school employees, and would discourage students from engaging in extra-curricular activities.
- And if you are a current or former student who experienced anti-gay harassment or discrimination in South Carolina, tell them your story.
Writing your own letter would be best, but here’s a model letter you can use — feel free to change it or add your own personal details:
Dear (name of board member),
I am writing to you today to voice my opposition to the proposed new clubs policy for District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties. I think the proposed policy is a bad idea for many reasons.
(If you are a current or former District Five student who has experienced anti-gay discrimination or harassment at the school, here’s where you should tell your story. Be detailed — paint a picture for the board of what life at your school is like for LGBT students. Include information like what year any incidents happened, what happened if you reported the incidents to school administrators, and how the incidents made you feel and impacted your life. If you live in the district, are the parent of a student in the district, or have some other local connection, please mention it here.)
This proposed new policy clearly targets gay students and their supporters who want to take part in the GSA club. Gay-straight alliances provide a safe space for students to be themselves free from harassment and bullying, and help make schools safer for all students. Over 2,000 GSA’s are in existence throughout the United States. There is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about having a GSA at any District Five, and trying to block one only invites possible lawsuits, wastes taxpayer money, and sends gay students the message that their school doesn’t care about their safety or well-being. In fact, courts have found time and time again that the federal Equal Access Act protects the right of students to form these clubs.
Beyond that, this new policy would discourage the students who need extracurricular activities the most from participating in them. Students whose parents are overworked, neglectful, disorganized, or unstable are the ones who most need the connection to school and community that club participation provides, but those same students will have the hardest time getting parental permission slips signed.
I ask that you please reject this unnecessary new clubs policy, let the GSA form in peace, and let students get back to the business of learning.
Sincerely,
(Your name)
Remember: Please be polite and respectful. It will help the students more if we persuade the board members to do the right thing, not yell at them!
Where to send your letters:
Please send your letters to each of the following members of the school board BEFORE their next board meeting on Monday, June 23, 2008:
Paula Hite Chairperson,
District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties
410 Clearview Drive Columbia SC 29212
pahite@lex5.k12.sc.usEllen Baumgardner
Board Member, District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties
229 Woodwinds West Drive Columbia SC 29212
ebaumgar@lex5.k12.sc.usRoberta Ferrell
Secretary, District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties
115 Press Lindler Road Columbia SC 29212
rferrell@lex5.k12.sc.usRobert Gantt
Board Member, District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties
1213 Old Tamah Road Irmo SC 29063
rgantt@lex5.k12.sc.usCarol Sloop
Board Member, District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties
5 Old Farm Lane Irmo SC 29063
csloop@lex5.k12.sc.usEd White
Board Member, District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties
327 Steeple Crest North Irmo SC 29063
ewhite@lex5.k12.sc.us
Please also send a copy of your letter to the Chief Instructional Services Officer and the school board’s attorney:
Dr. Lee Bollman
Chief Instructional Services Officer District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties
1020 Dutch Fork Rd. lrmo, SC 29063
LBollman@lex5.k12.sc.usAndrea E. White
Duff, White & Turner, LLC
P.O. Box 1486 Columbia, SC 29202
awhite@ddtwb.com
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.