Connect with us

National

Advocates push Obama on education reform

Seeking bipartisan support for pro-LGBT changes

Published

on

President Obama addresses attendees at anti-bullying conference (Blade photo by Michael Key).

LGBT rights supporters are pushing for the inclusion of student anti-bullying and non-discrimination measures as part of upcoming education reform legislation as observers say bipartisan support and pressure from the White House are needed to ensure they’re included in any larger vehicle that makes it to President Obama’s desk.

Obama has identified reauthorization of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act, updated during the Bush administration as No Child Left Behind, during his State of the Union address as among his priorities for the 112th Congress and has been touring the country with education leaders — including Education Secretary Arne Duncan — to make the case for education reform.

Last week during a speech before Kenmore Middle School students in Arlington, Va., Obama noted support for updating No Child Left Behind in Congress and called on lawmakers to send him education reform legislation before the next school year begins in the fall.

“I am proud of the commitment by Democrats and Republicans in Congress to fix No Child Left Behind, to make this reform a reality — because they recognize education is an area where we can’t afford to drag our feet,” Obama said. “As Arne says, our kids only get one shot at an education, and we’ve got to get it right.”

Whether the 112th Congress can reauthorize No Child Left Behind remains in question as the leaders in the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate differ on what reform should look like. Even if passage can happen, many political observers have said Obama’s goal of passing education reform by end of summer is unrealistic.

Components of education reform that Obama has enumerated support for include implementing an accountability system that shares responsibility for improvement and rewards excellence; having a flexible system that empowers school administrators and teachers; and having a system that targets resources to persistently low-performing schools and ensures the most effective teachers serve students most in need.

But LGBT rights supporters are looking to No Child Left Behind reauthorization as as a vehicle to pass various bills pending before Congress that aim to combat bullying and discrimination against LGBT students.

In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) sponsors the Safe Schools Improvement Act, an anti-bullying measure, which, among other things, would require public schools to establish codes of conduct explicitly prohibiting bullying and harassment. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) is expected to introduce companion legislation in the House.

Similar legislation that aims to help LGBT students is the Student Non-Discrimination Act. Introduced by gay lawmaker Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) in the House and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) in the Senate, the legislation prohibits public schools and school programs from discriminating against LGBT students.

Additionally, the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act — sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in the Senate and Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) in the House — would require colleges to establish policies against harassment.

The bill is named after a Rutgers University student who leaped off the George Washington Bridge in September after a video was posted online of him reportedly having a sexual encounter with another man in his dorm room. However, this legislation has a lower profile than either the Safe Schools Improvement Act or the Student Non-Discrimination Act.

LGBT advocates working to advance these measures say talks are already taking place on Capitol Hill to include them as part of No Child Left Behind reauthorization as discussions begin over passage of the larger vehicle.

Shawn Gaylord, director of public policy for Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, confirmed talks have already started on including pro-LGBT measures as part of education reform.

“We and other groups have been talking to committee staff for quite a while about that possibility,” Gaylord said. “Throughout this Congress, we’ve been talking to committee staff and making sure they were aware of our hope of getting legislation included in ESEA reauthorization.”

Gaylord said he’s “hopeful” that the pro-LGBT measures will be integrated as part of No Child Left Behind reauthorization. In 2007, when Congress was undertaking a previous attempt to enact education reform, Gaylord said nearly the entire Safe Schools Improvement Act was included in the discussion drafts of Elementary & Secondary Act reauthorization.

“So there’s precedent for it,” Gaylord said. “To deal with issues of bullying or discrimination — it’s not as if that’s not what ESEA reauthorization would cover.”

A Republican strategist familiar with education reform, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it’s too early to tell whether education reform — LGBT-inclusive or otherwise — can make it to the president’s desk during this Congress, but expressed optimism about the effort.

“The good thing is that, obviously, Republicans and Democrats haven’t been agreeing on too much lately, but the one area where folks think there is a real chance for them to come to agreement is on education and what to do with No Child Left Behind reauthorization,” the strategist said. “If anything can get bipartisan support and get done this year, it’s probably that.”

With Republicans in control of the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, observers maintain that bipartisan agreement on inclusion of the pro-LGBT measures is necessary for them to stay on as a component of the larger bill.

One LGBT rights advocate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said staffers on the Senate HELP Committee have indicated that passage of No Child Left Behind reauthorization with LGBT inclusion will depend on support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

“I would say that they are hopeful, but realistic that the likelihood is almost entirely dependent on a bipartisan effort,” the source said.

A spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) deferred comment on the issue to the House Education & Workforce Committee, which didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment.

On the Senate side, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, is a co-sponsor of the Safe Schools Improvement Act. Justine Sessions, a committee spokesperson, said Harkin hopes to include the pro-LGBT measures as part of education reform.

“Chairman Harkin is a strong supporter of efforts to protect students against discrimination and bullying, and hopes to address these issues in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” she said.

Bipartisan support could emerge for the Safe Schools Improvement Act because Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is an original co-sponsor for the legislation. A former House member, Kirk has said in the lower chamber of Congress Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) could be an original co-sponsor of the legislation.

For the Student Non-Discrimination Act, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is a GOP co-sponsor on the House side. The Senate version doesn’t have a Republican co-sponsor. The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act doesn’t have a GOP co-sponsor in either the House or Senate.

The sources said Kirk’s support for the Safe Schools Improvement Act could be used to leverage support from Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, for inclusion of the bill as part of the larger vehicle.

Gaylord said additional GOP co-sponsors for the standalone pro-LGBT legislation would help bolster their chances of success as part of education reform.

“I just think more Republican support for these bills will obviously be important, particularly in the House,” he said.

The Republican strategist said leadership from Senate Democrats “saying that this is something important” is needed to ensure LGBT anti-bullying and non-discrimination language are included in education reform.

“You’re also going to need to demonstrate enough Republican support on the House side that Republicans are able to allow it to end up in the final package,” the strategist said.

LGBT rights supporters also say that pressure from the White House and explict endorsements of the anti-bullying and non-discrimination from Obama are important to ensure they’re part of larger legislation.

Support for those measures from Obama would build on the anti-bullying conference that the White House held this month to shed light on harassment of students and devise ways to mitigate bullying against students — both in schools and online.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the president supports “the goals” of the pro-LGBT bills and wants to ensure students are free from harassment as they pursue their studies.

“This year, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is being considered, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that all students are safe and healthy and can learn in environments free from discrimination, bullying and harassment,” Inouye said.

Gaylord said he welcomes the steps that White House has taken against student bullying and harassment, but noted the president has yet to voice explicit support for the pro-LGBT bills.

“The administration has not yet called for passage of either [the Safe Schools Improvement Act or the Student Non-Discrimination Act] by name, so that is sort of the next step,” Gaylord said. “Now would be that time that we would really anticipate the administration to step up and be even more specific in their support for legislative vehicles.”

The anonymous Republican strategist said “there’s no question” anti-bullying efforts are a priority for the Obama administration, but the extent to which the president will fight for passage of legislation remains to be seen.

“That has not been translated into support for specific legislation, so I think the jury’s still out on the degree to which the administration will advocate for this particular change — whether they’ll advocate for it all or whether they’ll advocate for it specifically as a part of this education revamp.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the House version of the Student Non-Discrimination Act doesn’t have a Republican co-sponsor. The Washington Blade regrets the error.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits

Administration criticizes National Museum of American History

Published

on

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum is expected to install warning signs outside the National Museum of American History warning visitors of supposedly anti-American content. (Photo courtesy of the Office of the Governor of North Dakota)

The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.

According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”

Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.

Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.

“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.

The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.

The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.

The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”

The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.

It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”

Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”

On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.

In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.

House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”

In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.

Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.

“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.

Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.

It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.

An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)

Continue Reading

National

Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups

Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs

Published

on

The Trump administration will discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations that provide HIV prevention services. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.

 News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.

Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.

Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.

Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.

A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.

 Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.

“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.” 

Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.  

 Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.

“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,”  Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.

Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.

In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.  

 “Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.

It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end. 

“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.

“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes. 

Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.

Continue Reading

National

At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers

Published

on

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.

By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.

They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”

Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.

In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”

That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.

After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.

At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.

“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.

Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.

All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.

The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.

I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.

In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.

It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.

Continue Reading

Popular