News
DeVos: It’s OK if states discriminate against LGBT students
Education sec’y also won’t denounce racial discrimination
Betsy DeVos refused to denounce discrimination against LGBT students.
(Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Under a grilling during a congressional hearing Wednesday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos refused to say she’ll speak out against discrimination against LGBT students — or even students experiencing racial discrimination.
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) pressed DeVos during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Lighthouse Christian Academy, a private school in Indiana the lawmaker says is the recipient school voucher money, but may not admit students from families with “homosexual or bisexual activity” or “practicing alternate identity.”
Clark asked DeVos, who’s advocating a budget that calls for a $250 million increase in school voucher funds, if she’ll “stand up that this school will be open to all students.”
DeVos first dodged the question, saying she’ll like to defer to earlier comment from lawmaker, and still refused to denounce the policy when asked to draw a line on state flexibility and reject money for schools discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, race or special needs.
“For states who have programs that allow for parents to make choices, they set up the rules around that,” DeVos said.
Pressed further by Clark on whether the Education Department would withhold school vouchers on any situation regarding discrimination, DeVos again refused to answer.
“The Office of Civil Rights and our Title IX protections are broadly applicable across the board,” DeVos said. “But when it comes to parents making choices on behalf of their students…”
Davis interrupting by saying “this isn’t about parents making choices, this is about use of federal dollars,” and pressed DeVos who provided a non-answer about flexibility.
“So, if I understand your testimony,” Davis responded, “I want to make sure I get this right. There’s no situation of discrimination or exclusion that if a state approved it for its voucher program, that you would step and say that’s now how we’re going to use our federal dollars? There’s no situation, if the state approved it, that you would put the state flexibility over our students? Is that your testimony?”
DeVos began to say the situation was “hypothetical,” but Davis responded the situation was real and pointed to Lighthouse Christian Academy. At this point, the Republican chair of the committee informed Davis her time had expired.
“The bottom line is we believe that parents are the best equipped to make choices for their children’s schooling and education decisions, and too many children today are trapped in schools that don’t work for them,” DeVos said. “We have to do something different, we have to do something different than continuing a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach, and that is the focus, and states and local communities are best equipped to make these decisions and framework on behalf of their students.”
Davis, seemingly exasperated, concluded, “I am shocked that you could not come up with one example of discrimination that you would stand up for students.”
David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, was among those denouncing DeVos for refusing to denounce anti-LGBT discrimination.
“Taxpayer funds should never be used to discriminate against LGBTQ students, and it is shocking and disappointing that Secretary DeVos won’t make this basic commitment,” Stacy said. “Secretary DeVos has failed again to stand up for all students and ensure every child is able to receive an education free from harassment and discrimination.”
Federal law against discrimination in schools also prohibits charter and private schools from discriminating against students. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin for any school accepting federal funds, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex for any school accepting federal funds. There is an exemption in Title IX for religious schools, but not for charter or secular private schools.
DeVos, who was narrowly confirmed by the Senate, has been a controversial figure and despised by charter school opponents for her support for school vouchers.
Earlier this year, DeVos and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions revoked Obama-era guidance barring schools from discriminating against transgender students or denying them access to the restroom consistent with their gender identity.
Media reports indicated she resisted the change, but she ultimately agreed to it. Afterwards, DeVos met with transgender students and a trio of LGBT advocacy groups at the Education Department.
Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, also denounced DeVos and said the education secretary was “turning a blind eye to LGBTQ students who experience discrimination in school.”
“DeVos once claimed she was an LGBTQ ally, but has now supported back to back policies that would erase LGBTQ students from classrooms,” Ellis said. “If she wants to be known as more than an anti-LGBTQ activist the time is now to reverse course.”
h/t Huffington Post
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
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.
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
