Connect with us

News

DeVos still won’t say federal law bars anti-LGBT discrimination

Education secretary insists schools must follow federal law

Published

on

Betsy DeVos, gay news, Washington Blade

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos wouldn’t say charter schools are barred from anti-LGBT discrimination. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Weeks after facing criticism for refusing to speak out in congressional testimony against anti-LGBT discrimination in charter schools, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos still won’t say federal law prohibits them from discriminating against LGBT students.

DeVos on Tuesday referred generally to rules under federal law in a testy exchange on whether she’d speak out against anti-LGBT discrimination in charter schools with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who said the statute in this area is “somewhat foggy.”

Although DeVos acknowledged charter schools aren’t eligible for U.S. government money if they violate federal laws against discrimination, she dodged when asked specifically if charter schools under her plan would be able to discriminate against LGBT students.

“I said it before and I’ll say it again that schools that receive federal funds must follow federal law,” said DeVos, who’s promoting a Trump administration plan that calls for a $250 million increase in school voucher funds.

When Merkley insisted federal law is foggy and pressed DeVos again on whether anti-LGBT discrimination would be allowed under her proposal, she said, “On areas where the law is unsettled, this department is not going to be issuing decrees. That is a matter for Congress and the courts.”

Merkley interrupted to seek clarification, but DeVos would only repeat her deference to Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court when the law is unclear.

Visibly frustrated, Merkley said he interprets DeVos’ response to mean “where it’s unsettled, such discrimination will continue to be allowed under your program,” adding if that interpretation is incorrect, she should make a correction in the record.

Asked the same question as it pertains to discrimination against students on the basis of religion, DeVos’ response was no different.

“Again, for schools that receive federal funds, federal law must be followed,” DeVos said.

When Merkley demanded DeVos answer the question as it pertains to religious discrimination against students, she said, “Schools that receive federal funds will follow federal law. Period.”

The Oregon Democrat rebuked DeVos for a response he said is too vague.

“You’re refusing to answer the question,” Merkley said. “I think that’s very important for the public to know that today the secretary of education before this committee refused to affirm that she would put forward a program that bans discrimination based on LGBTQ status of students or bans discrimination based on religion.”

DeVos protested Merkley’s characterization of her words, denying her response indicated any support for allowing discrimination in charter schools.

“Sir, that’s not what I said,” DeVos said. “That’s not what I said. Discrimination in any form is wrong. I don’t support discrimination in any form.”

Merkley asked for a yes-or-no answer on whether DeVos’ program bans discrimination, the education secretary replied, “What program are you talking about?” Merkley said it was her charter and private school grant proposals, prompting DeVos to repeat her previous response.

“As I said before, and let me say it again, schools that receive federal funds need to follow federal law. Period,” DeVos said.

Interrupting DeVos, Merkley concluded, “You said the same thing 10 times without answering the question at all.”

Although she wouldn’t say federal law bars discrimination against LGBT students, DeVos’ general repudiation of discrimination in any form is different from an earlier exchange with Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.). At the time, DeVos wouldn’t denounce discrimination in any capacity when asked about anti-LGBT or racial discrimination in charter schools.

Denouncing DeVos for her response was Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, who said in a statement the secretary’s words were leaving LGBT students out in the cold.

“By once again turning a blind eye to LGBTQ students who experience discrimination in school, Secretary DeVos continues to prove why she was the wrong choice to lead our nation’s education system,” Ellis said. “DeVos once claimed she was an LGBTQ ally, but has now supported back to back policies that would erase LGBTQ students from classrooms. If she wants to be known as more than an anti-LGBTQ activist the time is now to reverse course.”

Federal law doesn’t explicitly ban anti-LGBT discrimination, but it does bar sex discrimination. Courts are increasingly interpreting those laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. That’s likely what Merkley meant when he said existing federal law on the issue is “somewhat foggy.”

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.

The Obama administration had issued guidance making clear Title IX precludes schools from barring transgender students from the restroom consistent with their gender identity, but DeVos along with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions revoked it at the start of the Trump administration. Media reports indicated DeVos resisted that move and she later met with LGBT groups and transgender students at the Education Department.

Vanita Gupta, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, said she’s “glad to hear” DeVos opposes discrimination, but called for action.

“Words alone are insufficient,” Gupta said. “She must use her authority as secretary to make that prohibition and those protections for students real. The department must also proactively support schools to prevent discrimination and intervene when the law is broken. This can’t just be about talk; students need and deserve action.”

Merkley is lead sponsor in the Senate of the Equality Act, comprehensive legislation that would make explicit a ban on anti-LGBT discrimination in every area of civil rights law, including education.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Netherlands

Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands

Gay Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten among participants

Published

on

A scene from the 2026 Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Editor’s note: International News Editor Michael K. Lavers and Photo Editor Michael Key are on assignment in the Netherlands through Aug. 10.

AMSTERDAM — Hundreds of thousands of people lined Amsterdam’s canals on Saturday for the city’s annual Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade.

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, who is openly gay, is among those who participated in the parade that featured more than 80 boats. Participants held signs and posters that, among other things, read “proud to be intersex” and “lesbians love you and a free Palestine.”

The Washington Blade saw at least two attendees holding fans that read “fuck Trump.” One of the boats also compared President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin as “the kissing couple.”

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

(Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)

(Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)

The parade took place a week after a terrorist attack at Berlin’s Christopher Street Day left one person dead and more than two dozen others injured.

It passed the Homomonument, a memorial to gays and lesbians who have suffered persecution. The Homomonument has been transformed into a makeshift memorial to the victims of the July 25 terrorist attack in the German capital.

View on Threads

The Canal Parade took place during World Pride, which will end in Amsterdam on Aug. 9.

Continue Reading

European Union

Poland’s top court rejects recognition of same-sex marriages from other EU countries

Ruling sets up potential clash with bloc

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

Poland’s top court this week rejected the recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in other EU countries.

The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg last November ruled in favor of a same-sex couple who challenged Poland’s refusal to recognize their German marriage. Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court in March reaffirmed the decision.

The couple, who lives in Poland, brought their case to Polish courts in 2019. The Supreme Administrative Court referred it to the EU Court of Justice.

The Polish government in May announced it will recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other EU countries. Polish President Karol Nawrocki on July 17 vetoed bills that would have extended rights to same-sex couples.

The Constitutional Tribunal ruling, which it issued on July 28, was unanimous and final. It also sets up a potential clash between it and the EU Court of Justice.

Continue Reading

Taiwan

Taiwan’s government has failed to update process to change gender markers on ID documents

Interior Ministry’s 2008 directive remains in place

Published

on

(Photo by bRollGO/Bigstock)

More than four years after Taiwan began formally studying legislation to overhaul its legal gender recognition system, and despite repeated recommendations from international human rights experts, the government has yet to introduce a bill that would replace decades-old administrative rules governing how transgender people can change the gender marker on official documents.

On May 15, an independent international review committee examining Taiwan’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights urged the government to enact legislation governing legal gender recognition. The committee said Taiwan’s continued reliance on an administrative order, despite a 2023 Supreme Administrative Court ruling that mandatory gender-affirming surgery violates constitutional rights, has created legal uncertainty for transgender people, administrative authorities and judges.

In Taiwan, legal gender recognition has long been governed by a 2008 Interior Ministry administrative directive rather than legislation. 

Under the directive, applicants seeking to change the gender marker on their national identification documents are generally required to provide diagnoses of gender dysphoria from two psychiatrists and proof that they have undergone gender-affirming surgery. For trans men, this typically involves the removal of the breasts, uterus, and ovaries, while trans women generally must undergo the removal of the penis and testicles. Because these requirements are established through an administrative directive rather than a law enacted by the legislature, trans rights activists and human rights organizations have argued they violate human rights.

Although Taiwanese courts have increasingly allowed trans people to change the gender marker on their official documents without undergoing gender-affirming surgery, the Interior Ministry’s 2008 directive requiring surgery remains in force. As a result, Taiwan’s administrative rules and judicial decisions are no longer fully aligned.

In a landmark ruling in May 2024, the Taipei High Administrative Court ordered a household registration office to approve a trans man’s application to change the gender marker on his household registration without requiring gender-affirming surgery. The court held that the Interior Ministry’s 2008 administrative directive, which requires applicants to submit proof of surgery, cannot be treated as an absolute prerequisite for legal gender recognition. Instead, it found that the applicant had provided sufficient medical evidence of a stable and long-standing gender identity and that denying the application solely because he had not undergone surgery was unlawful.

The Executive Yuan began work on legislation in April 2020, when it decided to commission an academic study examining international legal gender recognition systems rather than immediately drafting a law. 

The government subsequently commissioned Shih Hsin University to prepare a report reviewing foreign legal models and developing legislative recommendations, including a bill. Since 2022, the Executive Yuan has held a series of inter-agency meetings involving multiple ministries to consider the study’s recommendations and legislation governing legal gender recognition, though no bill has yet been enacted.

In September 2023, Taiwan’s Supreme Administrative Court set aside a lower court ruling that had upheld the Interior Ministry’s refusal to change a trans person’s legal gender without proof of surgery and ordered the case to be reheard. 

The court held that the ministry’s 2008 administrative directive requiring surgery could not be treated as the controlling legal standard because it lacked a clear statutory basis and implicated constitutional protections, including bodily autonomy and personality rights. Rather than treating surgery as an automatic prerequisite, the court instructed the lower court to determine whether the applicant had established a stable gender identity based on the evidence presented.

“From our perspective, the primary goal should be lowering the barriers to legal gender recognition, particularly by abolishing the mandatory surgery requirement,” the Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association, a nonprofit LGBTQ advocacy and support organization founded in 1998, said in an email to the Washington Blade.

The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said several factors have stalled progress toward comprehensive legislation. 

The organization told the Blade the complexity of the issue and the lack of constructive dialogue are among the primary obstacles. It said legal gender recognition requires extensive discussion, with views differing even within the trans community itself. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association added that opinions also vary widely within the legislature and across Taiwanese society, while effective channels for dialogue remain lacking.

The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association also attributed the lack of progress to what it described as a lack of political will and an over reliance on “social consensus.” 

According to the organization, the executive branch lacks the political momentum to advance legal gender recognition reforms. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said the Interior Ministry and other relevant agencies have often adopted a passive approach in the face of opposition from conservative groups, delaying progress by arguing that there is no social consensus or that further discussion is needed.

The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association also said progress has been hindered by what it described as a backlash following the legalization of same-sex marriage. According to the organization, groups opposed to gender equality and trans rights, including some conservative religious and anti-trans organizations, shifted their focus to trans issues after marriage equality became law. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said these groups have promoted fear-based narratives, including concerns about safety in public restrooms, leading many politicians to view trans rights as a politically risky issue and reducing momentum for legislative action.

“The existing system makes changing one’s legal gender marker extremely difficult. Forced surgical removal of reproductive organs imposes a heavy financial burden since it must be paid out-of-pocket, and not every trans person can afford, desires, or is medically advised to undergo organ removal,” the Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said. “Additionally, requiring psychiatric evaluations is problematic because specialized medical resources are scarce and concentrated in major cities. These obstacles severely impact transgender individuals in their daily lives.”

The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said the continued reliance on an administrative directive rather than legislation has created systemic uncertainty for trans people. The organization said the absence of a statutory framework allows executive agencies to alter requirements without legislative oversight, leaving trans people uncertain whether future policies will become more restrictive or more permissive. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association added that while several trans people have secured favorable court rulings since 2023, those decisions apply only to the individual cases before the courts and do not guarantee similar outcomes for others. The group also said pursuing litigation requires significant time, financial resources, and emotional investment, making it an inaccessible path for many trans people seeking legal recognition.

The Executive Yuan and the Interior Ministry did not respond to the Blade’s requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Popular