National
DOJ, DOE reach anti-bullying deal with Minn. school district
Nine youths had committed suicide after being bullied
The Obama administration has arranged an agreement requiring Minnesota’s largest school district to change its policies after it allegedly allowed students to be subjected to anti-gay harassment.
On Monday night, the Departments of Justice and Education announced it had come to an agreement with six student plaintiffs and the Anoka-Hennepin School District and filed a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
According to a statement from the Departments of Justice and Education, the consent decree will remain in place for five years and require the Anoka-Hennepin School District to undertake several initiatives:
- retain an expert consultant in the area of sex-based harassment to review the district’s policies and procedures concerning harassment;
- develop and implement a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment at the middle and high schools;
- improve its training of staff and students on sex-based harassment;
- appoint a Title IX coordinator to ensure proper implementation of the district’s sex-based harassment policies and procedures and district compliance with Title IX;
- retain an expert consultant in the area of mental health to address the needs of students who are victims of harassment;
- provide for other opportunities for student involvement and input into the district’s ongoing anti-harassment efforts;
- improve its system for maintaining records of investigations and responding to allegations of harassment;
- conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluations of its anti-harassment efforts;
- and submit annual compliance reports to the departments.
The agreement that must still be approved by U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen, who’s adjudicating litigation involved in the case, for it to take effect.
In November 2010, the Justice Department received a complaint alleging the school district — which educates more than 40,000 students and oversees 37 schools — was allowing anti-gay harassment of students because they weren’t conforming to gender stereotypes.
In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said the consent decree “provides a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform” to enhance the Anoka-Hennepin School District’s policies to protect students.
“The consent decree will build upon the district’s existing anti-harassment efforts to help create an environment where all students feel safe in school, are free from harassment and can be themselves,” Perez said.
Russlynn Ali, the Department of Education’s assistant secretary for civil rights, said the deal represents collaborative work to ensure students in the Anoka-Hennepin School District feel safe.
“We think their experience can be a model for other districts facing similar struggles, and we’re out here today to say that harassment of students based on failure to conform to gender stereotyping will be not tolerated,” Ali said.
No federal law prohibits schools from allowing harassment or discrimination on basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the Obama administration found that the Anoka-Hennepin School District was in violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibit harassment on the basis of gender, because schools allowed harassment against students who weren’t conforming to gender stereotypes.
In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent to school districts in November 2010, the Department of Education informed schools it could be violation of existing laws protecting against discrimination on the basis of gender if it allowed anti-LGBT harassment in schools.
In July, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against the district on behalf of six students who say they experienced harassment and violence as a result of an anti-gay environment. As a result of this litigation, the district on the same day it announced it agreed the terms set forth by the Obama administration agreed to pay student plaintiffs a total of $270,000.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the agreements “an important step” in making LGBT and gender non-conforming students feel safe in school.
“The district has committed to a detailed long-term plan to prevent and address harassment, as well as ongoing review of its implementation of the plan by federal agencies,” Minter said. “Along with the district’s repeal last month of its harmful and stigmatizing Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy, which prevented teachers from effectively responding to harassment, this agreement points the way toward a better future for LGBT students in the district.”
On the same day the agreement was reached, the Justice Department filed a complaint as part of its standard practices to intervene in federal litigation against the Anoka-Hennepin School District. The complaint details harassment of ten students who are identified by letters such as Student A or Student B.
Student A alleged he was told “You’re a guy, act like it” was called “so gay” and “fag,” despite having never identifying his sexual orientation. Students spread false rumors that he was a “pedophile” and alleged he raped his mother. Additionally, other students threatened to kill him, pushed him, threw food at him and called him names nearly every day for two years.
In response, the district discouraged Student A from engaging in gender nonconforming behavior and implemented measures isolating Student A that failed to stop the harassment. One assistant principal allegedly told Student A’s parents to stop him from wearing feminine clothing to school. Staff members took away Student A’s feminine clothing and, in reference to his singing, told him, “Boys don’t do that.”
Another student, Student B, was allegedly called “‘gay boy,’ ‘homo,’ and ‘fag.'” He was allegedly pushed up against a wall and forcibly restrained. Students harassed him with taunts of a sexual nature, saying, ‘Your dads are gay, so you’re going to be gay. Why don’t you just go and suck their cocks now?’”
Student B identifies as straight, but, according to the complaint, participates in a sport “that his peers view as a feminine activity.” He was allegedly told he participates in “a girl’s sport,” and “If a boy is in a girl’s sport, then he must be gay.” Students allegedly also said, “Why don’t you join a real sport like football?”
As a result of this bullying, nine youths have committed suicide in this school district over the past two years. At least four suicide victims were victims of bullying because they were gay or perceived to be gay. Justin Aaberg, who was 15, hanged himself in July 2010 after being subjected to anti-gay harassment.
Anoka-Hennepin Superintendent Dennis Carlson called the consent decree “a positive statement” of the continuing efforts to ensure a “welcoming environment for all students and families in our district.”
“The District and its staff want the public to know that there is another side to the story that we have been and remain unable to tell due to data privacy laws: without exception, our staff investigated and responded properly to reported harassment,” Carlson said. “They disciplined students found to have bullied or harassed other students. However, no one would deny that bullying and harassment are real problems in our society and must be more thoroughly and consistently addressed.”
B. Todd Jones, U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, emphasized the component of the deal requiring the district to hire by September a Title IX consultant to review school policy, including practices that could affect students at risk for mental health problems.
“By the end of the year, the mental health consultant hired by the school will prepare a comprehensive report to the school board with very specific recommendations, and by January of next year, the school will present a plan implementing those recommendations,” Jones said. “We firmly believe that this’ll make a real difference in the lives of students who are struggling as victims of harassment.”
According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Anoka-Hennepin School District board voted 5-1 on Monday to approve the agreement. The lone school board member to vote it, Kathy Tingelstad, resigned afterwards, reportedly citing concerns about cost, federal intervention in local schools and the precedent set for other districts.
In the conference call, Perez said the U.S. government is involved because it’s responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws prohibiting against harassment in schools on the basis of gender.
“We have federal laws on the books that protect situations such as this, and so we are simply doing our job or ensuring equal educational opportunity and promoting a safe and healthy learning environment,” Perez said.
Perez said the cost of the deal over the course of five years was $500,000 based on estimates from the district superintendent, but added the district will have opportunities to access federal money to pay for initiatives.
“I think when you address the question of costs, you also have to address the question of benefits, and I think the benefits are priceless,” Perez said. “When you have a nurturing environment that enables students to learn that return on investment is absolutely priceless.”
Legislation that would explicitly ban discrimination against LGBT students, known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act, is pending before Congress. The bill is sponsored in the House by gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and in the Senate by Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.). The Obama administration has yet to endorse the legislation.
Perez said a having law on the books like the Student Non-Discrimination Act would “certainly be helpful,” but stopped short of offering a full-throated endorsement of the bill.
“We have had conversations with various stakeholders on the Hill and spoken about that, and are carefully reviewing that particular proposal,” Perez said.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
Comings & Goings
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
Vance speaks at Orbán rally in Hungary
LGBTQ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
