Decision Time for DEI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
State Senator Roem posted the following (I didn’t cut/paste the entire post) which seems to show that the districts are following current statutes?


On August 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CA4 for short) ruled in favor of the plaintiff Gavin Grimm in the case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which directly affected public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn the ruling on June 28, 2021, which means the CA4 ruling from 2020 still stands today, almost exactly five years after the decision.

In that ruling, the judges wrote, "At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes."

You can read that ruling here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

Today, the Prince William County School Board joined four other Northern Virginia public school systems in rejecting a demand from the federal administration to break federal and state law regarding its restroom policy for transgender and gender nonconforming students.

You can read the Prince William Times story about it here:
https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-prince-william-schools-keeps-its-inclusive-transgender-bathroom-rules/article_7c0f9de9-d08d-4637-a278-f7bfceb30448.html

In response, "The U.S. Department of Education said Friday that it will take action against the school districts that are defying its order to reverse their policies," according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
https://richmond.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_b2d32a33-6a80-4b7f-8aac-27add1ff8b64.html

However, no action from the federal administration, Congress or Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the CA4 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board -- not even the United States v. Skrmetti decision from June 18 of this year.

What that means is, regardless of whether anyone personally supports or opposes the outcome of the ruling, public school systems in Virginia have to follow the law and the CA4 ruling is law.

In addition to that, this is also a matter of state law.

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

You can read the Virginia Human Rights Act here:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-human-rights-act/

Woke ruling, by a woke court at the height of the woke movement. SC will have to step in and correct. SC is going to have a very busy schedule over the next few years.

Ok, so regardless of your opinion of it being “woke” (and I’m one who agrees that biological males should not be on women teams), we agree that the school districts’ stance falls correctly under current law.

Which is why the administration has to step in and take a hard line. So that federal law (Title IX) is affirmed as the law of the land by the SC and girls/woman are protected. Fastest way to solve the problem.

Ok, but are agreeing to what Sen Roem wrote, which was to say that the districts’ policies abide by current law as they stand?

The current policies violate Federal law (Title IX) so the state statute becomes irrelevant.

Please know I’m not arguing, only asking to clarify. Doesn’t this court ruling (read the summary), say that the policies do not violate federal law?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

The beginning of the summary states: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender.

Yes, an activist court choice to create an outcome to their liking and consistent with the previous administration’s view of Title IX. As a result the current administration is acting to get the SC to rule on Title IX. At that point the 4th circuit decision will be vacated and VA’s “law” will not stand.

Since the local districts currently meet the requirements of the law, the federal government is really putting the cart before the horse. The earlier PP said “The current polices violate federal law”, which is untrue based on most recent rulings of current law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
State Senator Roem posted the following (I didn’t cut/paste the entire post) which seems to show that the districts are following current statutes?


On August 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CA4 for short) ruled in favor of the plaintiff Gavin Grimm in the case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which directly affected public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn the ruling on June 28, 2021, which means the CA4 ruling from 2020 still stands today, almost exactly five years after the decision.

In that ruling, the judges wrote, "At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes."

You can read that ruling here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

Today, the Prince William County School Board joined four other Northern Virginia public school systems in rejecting a demand from the federal administration to break federal and state law regarding its restroom policy for transgender and gender nonconforming students.

You can read the Prince William Times story about it here:
https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-prince-william-schools-keeps-its-inclusive-transgender-bathroom-rules/article_7c0f9de9-d08d-4637-a278-f7bfceb30448.html

In response, "The U.S. Department of Education said Friday that it will take action against the school districts that are defying its order to reverse their policies," according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
https://richmond.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_b2d32a33-6a80-4b7f-8aac-27add1ff8b64.html

However, no action from the federal administration, Congress or Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the CA4 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board -- not even the United States v. Skrmetti decision from June 18 of this year.

What that means is, regardless of whether anyone personally supports or opposes the outcome of the ruling, public school systems in Virginia have to follow the law and the CA4 ruling is law.

In addition to that, this is also a matter of state law.

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

You can read the Virginia Human Rights Act here:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-human-rights-act/

Woke ruling, by a woke court at the height of the woke movement. SC will have to step in and correct. SC is going to have a very busy schedule over the next few years.

Ok, so regardless of your opinion of it being “woke” (and I’m one who agrees that biological males should not be on women teams), we agree that the school districts’ stance falls correctly under current law.

Which is why the administration has to step in and take a hard line. So that federal law (Title IX) is affirmed as the law of the land by the SC and girls/woman are protected. Fastest way to solve the problem.

Ok, but are agreeing to what Sen Roem wrote, which was to say that the districts’ policies abide by current law as they stand?

The current policies violate Federal law (Title IX) so the state statute becomes irrelevant.

Please know I’m not arguing, only asking to clarify. Doesn’t this court ruling (read the summary), say that the policies do not violate federal law?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

The beginning of the summary states: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender.

Prediction: it will be overturned.

Yep it would be best to comply rather than draw the SCOTUS attention. Soon to be the law of the land. Talk about a self own.

You got a good point here!

In the meanwhile since school starts in a couple of days, FCPS students shouldn’t feel obligated to sign the SR&R because it has clauses that pertain to Title IX that are against the law. Or if they do, they can cross out anything pertaining FCPS’ erroneous application of Title IX, and then sign it. Parents can do the same. Of course, they can always apply the same MO of FCPS and request an “extension” to “review” the SR&R until November before signing it? Most likely by then these clauses will be removed because the SC will have ruled in favor of women and girls in our schools. A good lesson in civics for our students!

[Anonymous]

The state law introduces a conflict.

How can the rights of a particular sex be protected when the state law introduces a new protected class, "gender identity", that allows members of one sex to subjectively decide they they identify as the other sex? "Gender identity" usurps "sex" as a protected class because it erases the difference between male and female. The practical impact is the loss of female spaces and female sports teams - impacting individual females. So the state law not only is inconsistent with itself (it includes both sex and gender identity), but clearly is in conflict with Title IX. Title IX was passed to protect and provide opportunities to women and girls and the bottom line is that women and girls lose under current FCPS policy.

1972 - Title IX states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]”

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

FCPS needs to stop the lunacy and comply with Title IX.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
State Senator Roem posted the following (I didn’t cut/paste the entire post) which seems to show that the districts are following current statutes?


On August 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CA4 for short) ruled in favor of the plaintiff Gavin Grimm in the case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which directly affected public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn the ruling on June 28, 2021, which means the CA4 ruling from 2020 still stands today, almost exactly five years after the decision.

In that ruling, the judges wrote, "At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes."

You can read that ruling here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

Today, the Prince William County School Board joined four other Northern Virginia public school systems in rejecting a demand from the federal administration to break federal and state law regarding its restroom policy for transgender and gender nonconforming students.

You can read the Prince William Times story about it here:
https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-prince-william-schools-keeps-its-inclusive-transgender-bathroom-rules/article_7c0f9de9-d08d-4637-a278-f7bfceb30448.html

In response, "The U.S. Department of Education said Friday that it will take action against the school districts that are defying its order to reverse their policies," according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
https://richmond.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_b2d32a33-6a80-4b7f-8aac-27add1ff8b64.html

However, no action from the federal administration, Congress or Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the CA4 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board -- not even the United States v. Skrmetti decision from June 18 of this year.

What that means is, regardless of whether anyone personally supports or opposes the outcome of the ruling, public school systems in Virginia have to follow the law and the CA4 ruling is law.

In addition to that, this is also a matter of state law.

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

You can read the Virginia Human Rights Act here:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-human-rights-act/

Woke ruling, by a woke court at the height of the woke movement. SC will have to step in and correct. SC is going to have a very busy schedule over the next few years.

Ok, so regardless of your opinion of it being “woke” (and I’m one who agrees that biological males should not be on women teams), we agree that the school districts’ stance falls correctly under current law.

Which is why the administration has to step in and take a hard line. So that federal law (Title IX) is affirmed as the law of the land by the SC and girls/woman are protected. Fastest way to solve the problem.

Ok, but are agreeing to what Sen Roem wrote, which was to say that the districts’ policies abide by current law as they stand?

The current policies violate Federal law (Title IX) so the state statute becomes irrelevant.

Please know I’m not arguing, only asking to clarify. Doesn’t this court ruling (read the summary), say that the policies do not violate federal law?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

The beginning of the summary states: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender.

Prediction: it will be overturned.

Yep it would be best to comply rather than draw the SCOTUS attention. Soon to be the law of the land. Talk about a self own.

You got a good point here!

In the meanwhile since school starts in a couple of days, FCPS students shouldn’t feel obligated to sign the SR&R because it has clauses that pertain to Title IX that are against the law. Or if they do, they can cross out anything pertaining FCPS’ erroneous application of Title IX, and then sign it. Parents can do the same. Of course, they can always apply the same MO of FCPS and request an “extension” to “review” the SR&R until November before signing it? Most likely by then these clauses will be removed because the SC will have ruled in favor of women and girls in our schools. A good lesson in civics for our students!

I have 2 teens in FCPS. I will tell them both to not sign the SR&R this year since it is in clear conflict with Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

[Anonymous]

Well, McElveen has made it clear on his twitter post: challenging the feds interpretation of Title IX is all about keeping trans kids safe.

https://x.com/ryanlmcelveen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, McElveen has made it clear on his twitter post: challenging the feds interpretation of Title IX is all about keeping trans kids safe.

https://x.com/ryanlmcelveen

McElveen is a ridiculous extremist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
State Senator Roem posted the following (I didn’t cut/paste the entire post) which seems to show that the districts are following current statutes?


On August 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CA4 for short) ruled in favor of the plaintiff Gavin Grimm in the case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which directly affected public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn the ruling on June 28, 2021, which means the CA4 ruling from 2020 still stands today, almost exactly five years after the decision.

In that ruling, the judges wrote, "At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes."

You can read that ruling here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

Today, the Prince William County School Board joined four other Northern Virginia public school systems in rejecting a demand from the federal administration to break federal and state law regarding its restroom policy for transgender and gender nonconforming students.

You can read the Prince William Times story about it here:
https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-prince-william-schools-keeps-its-inclusive-transgender-bathroom-rules/article_7c0f9de9-d08d-4637-a278-f7bfceb30448.html

In response, "The U.S. Department of Education said Friday that it will take action against the school districts that are defying its order to reverse their policies," according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
https://richmond.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_b2d32a33-6a80-4b7f-8aac-27add1ff8b64.html

However, no action from the federal administration, Congress or Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the CA4 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board -- not even the United States v. Skrmetti decision from June 18 of this year.

What that means is, regardless of whether anyone personally supports or opposes the outcome of the ruling, public school systems in Virginia have to follow the law and the CA4 ruling is law.

In addition to that, this is also a matter of state law.

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

You can read the Virginia Human Rights Act here:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-human-rights-act/

Woke ruling, by a woke court at the height of the woke movement. SC will have to step in and correct. SC is going to have a very busy schedule over the next few years.

Ok, so regardless of your opinion of it being “woke” (and I’m one who agrees that biological males should not be on women teams), we agree that the school districts’ stance falls correctly under current law.

Which is why the administration has to step in and take a hard line. So that federal law (Title IX) is affirmed as the law of the land by the SC and girls/woman are protected. Fastest way to solve the problem.

Ok, but are agreeing to what Sen Roem wrote, which was to say that the districts’ policies abide by current law as they stand?

The current policies violate Federal law (Title IX) so the state statute becomes irrelevant.

Please know I’m not arguing, only asking to clarify. Doesn’t this court ruling (read the summary), say that the policies do not violate federal law?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

The beginning of the summary states: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender.

Prediction: it will be overturned.

Yep it would be best to comply rather than draw the SCOTUS attention. Soon to be the law of the land. Talk about a self own.

You got a good point here!

In the meanwhile since school starts in a couple of days, FCPS students shouldn’t feel obligated to sign the SR&R because it has clauses that pertain to Title IX that are against the law. Or if they do, they can cross out anything pertaining FCPS’ erroneous application of Title IX, and then sign it. Parents can do the same. Of course, they can always apply the same MO of FCPS and request an “extension” to “review” the SR&R until November before signing it? Most likely by then these clauses will be removed because the SC will have ruled in favor of women and girls in our schools. A good lesson in civics for our students!

I have 2 teens in FCPS. I will tell them both to not sign the SR&R this year since it is in clear conflict with Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

Isn’t signing it just an acknowledgment of having received/reviewed it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The state law introduces a conflict.

How can the rights of a particular sex be protected when the state law introduces a new protected class, "gender identity", that allows members of one sex to subjectively decide they they identify as the other sex? "Gender identity" usurps "sex" as a protected class because it erases the difference between male and female. The practical impact is the loss of female spaces and female sports teams - impacting individual females. So the state law not only is inconsistent with itself (it includes both sex and gender identity), but clearly is in conflict with Title IX. Title IX was passed to protect and provide opportunities to women and girls and the bottom line is that women and girls lose under current FCPS policy.

1972 - Title IX states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]”

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

FCPS needs to stop the lunacy and comply with Title IX.

Thank you for the clarification!

[Anonymous]

Has FCPS shared any plans on how they are going to make up the $160 million shortfall? They are politically elected positions, so if they want to take a political stance, fine. The voters can decide if they are in agreement in 2027. But I am interested in knowing how they are going to operationalize that decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has FCPS shared any plans on how they are going to make up the $160 million shortfall? They are politically elected positions, so if they want to take a political stance, fine. The voters can decide if they are in agreement in 2027. But I am interested in knowing how they are going to operationalize that decision.

The hired 4 full time body guards with the salary range between $84,000 and $143,000 for Reid to prepare for Reid's encounter with unsatisfied parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has FCPS shared any plans on how they are going to make up the $160 million shortfall? They are politically elected positions, so if they want to take a political stance, fine. The voters can decide if they are in agreement in 2027. But I am interested in knowing how they are going to operationalize that decision.

The hired 4 full time body guards with the salary range between $84,000 and $143,000 for Reid to prepare for Reid's encounter with unsatisfied parents.

I doubt if we'll be seeing much of Reid anymore, those guards are to get her from home to her office in the ivory tower, and also to get her through airports and hotel lobbies. Why would she spend her time meeting with teachers or parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has FCPS shared any plans on how they are going to make up the $160 million shortfall? They are politically elected positions, so if they want to take a political stance, fine. The voters can decide if they are in agreement in 2027. But I am interested in knowing how they are going to operationalize that decision.

The hired 4 full time body guards with the salary range between $84,000 and $143,000 for Reid to prepare for Reid's encounter with unsatisfied parents.

Fully-masked guards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
State Senator Roem posted the following (I didn’t cut/paste the entire post) which seems to show that the districts are following current statutes?


On August 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CA4 for short) ruled in favor of the plaintiff Gavin Grimm in the case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which directly affected public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn the ruling on June 28, 2021, which means the CA4 ruling from 2020 still stands today, almost exactly five years after the decision.

In that ruling, the judges wrote, "At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes."

You can read that ruling here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

Today, the Prince William County School Board joined four other Northern Virginia public school systems in rejecting a demand from the federal administration to break federal and state law regarding its restroom policy for transgender and gender nonconforming students.

You can read the Prince William Times story about it here:
https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-prince-william-schools-keeps-its-inclusive-transgender-bathroom-rules/article_7c0f9de9-d08d-4637-a278-f7bfceb30448.html

In response, "The U.S. Department of Education said Friday that it will take action against the school districts that are defying its order to reverse their policies," according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
https://richmond.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_b2d32a33-6a80-4b7f-8aac-27add1ff8b64.html

However, no action from the federal administration, Congress or Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the CA4 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board -- not even the United States v. Skrmetti decision from June 18 of this year.

What that means is, regardless of whether anyone personally supports or opposes the outcome of the ruling, public school systems in Virginia have to follow the law and the CA4 ruling is law.

In addition to that, this is also a matter of state law.

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

You can read the Virginia Human Rights Act here:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-human-rights-act/

Woke ruling, by a woke court at the height of the woke movement. SC will have to step in and correct. SC is going to have a very busy schedule over the next few years.

Ok, so regardless of your opinion of it being “woke” (and I’m one who agrees that biological males should not be on women teams), we agree that the school districts’ stance falls correctly under current law.

Which is why the administration has to step in and take a hard line. So that federal law (Title IX) is affirmed as the law of the land by the SC and girls/woman are protected. Fastest way to solve the problem.

Ok, but are agreeing to what Sen Roem wrote, which was to say that the districts’ policies abide by current law as they stand?

The current policies violate Federal law (Title IX) so the state statute becomes irrelevant.

Please know I’m not arguing, only asking to clarify. Doesn’t this court ruling (read the summary), say that the policies do not violate federal law?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

The beginning of the summary states: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender.

Prediction: it will be overturned.

Yep it would be best to comply rather than draw the SCOTUS attention. Soon to be the law of the land. Talk about a self own.

You got a good point here!

In the meanwhile since school starts in a couple of days, FCPS students shouldn’t feel obligated to sign the SR&R because it has clauses that pertain to Title IX that are against the law. Or if they do, they can cross out anything pertaining FCPS’ erroneous application of Title IX, and then sign it. Parents can do the same. Of course, they can always apply the same MO of FCPS and request an “extension” to “review” the SR&R until November before signing it? Most likely by then these clauses will be removed because the SC will have ruled in favor of women and girls in our schools. A good lesson in civics for our students!

I have 2 teens in FCPS. I will tell them both to not sign the SR&R this year since it is in clear conflict with Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

Isn’t signing it just an acknowledgment of having received/reviewed it?

You can either NOT sign it at all and ask for an extent until the SC rules on the issue, or cross out anything pertaining Title IX and after that sign it. By signing it as it is, you would be agreeing to the terms, which imply penalties if you disagree with trans policies in FCPS. However, if you cross out that part, (or other parts that are against the law, such as FCPS application of Title IX) you are acknowledging and agreeing to the terms for other clauses of the SR&R with the exception of what you cross out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
State Senator Roem posted the following (I didn’t cut/paste the entire post) which seems to show that the districts are following current statutes?


On August 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CA4 for short) ruled in favor of the plaintiff Gavin Grimm in the case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which directly affected public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn the ruling on June 28, 2021, which means the CA4 ruling from 2020 still stands today, almost exactly five years after the decision.

In that ruling, the judges wrote, "At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes."

You can read that ruling here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

Today, the Prince William County School Board joined four other Northern Virginia public school systems in rejecting a demand from the federal administration to break federal and state law regarding its restroom policy for transgender and gender nonconforming students.

You can read the Prince William Times story about it here:
https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-prince-william-schools-keeps-its-inclusive-transgender-bathroom-rules/article_7c0f9de9-d08d-4637-a278-f7bfceb30448.html

In response, "The U.S. Department of Education said Friday that it will take action against the school districts that are defying its order to reverse their policies," according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
https://richmond.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_b2d32a33-6a80-4b7f-8aac-27add1ff8b64.html

However, no action from the federal administration, Congress or Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the CA4 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board -- not even the United States v. Skrmetti decision from June 18 of this year.

What that means is, regardless of whether anyone personally supports or opposes the outcome of the ruling, public school systems in Virginia have to follow the law and the CA4 ruling is law.

In addition to that, this is also a matter of state law.

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

You can read the Virginia Human Rights Act here:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-human-rights-act/

Woke ruling, by a woke court at the height of the woke movement. SC will have to step in and correct. SC is going to have a very busy schedule over the next few years.

Ok, so regardless of your opinion of it being “woke” (and I’m one who agrees that biological males should not be on women teams), we agree that the school districts’ stance falls correctly under current law.

Which is why the administration has to step in and take a hard line. So that federal law (Title IX) is affirmed as the law of the land by the SC and girls/woman are protected. Fastest way to solve the problem.

Ok, but are agreeing to what Sen Roem wrote, which was to say that the districts’ policies abide by current law as they stand?

The current policies violate Federal law (Title IX) so the state statute becomes irrelevant.

Please know I’m not arguing, only asking to clarify. Doesn’t this court ruling (read the summary), say that the policies do not violate federal law?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

The beginning of the summary states: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender.

Prediction: it will be overturned.

Yep it would be best to comply rather than draw the SCOTUS attention. Soon to be the law of the land. Talk about a self own.

You got a good point here!

In the meanwhile since school starts in a couple of days, FCPS students shouldn’t feel obligated to sign the SR&R because it has clauses that pertain to Title IX that are against the law. Or if they do, they can cross out anything pertaining FCPS’ erroneous application of Title IX, and then sign it. Parents can do the same. Of course, they can always apply the same MO of FCPS and request an “extension” to “review” the SR&R until November before signing it? Most likely by then these clauses will be removed because the SC will have ruled in favor of women and girls in our schools. A good lesson in civics for our students!

I have 2 teens in FCPS. I will tell them both to not sign the SR&R this year since it is in clear conflict with Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

Isn’t signing it just an acknowledgment of having received/reviewed it?

You can either NOT sign it at all and ask for an extent until the SC rules on the issue, or cross out anything pertaining Title IX and after that sign it. By signing it as it is, you would be agreeing to the terms, which imply penalties if you disagree with trans policies in FCPS. However, if you cross out that part, (or other parts that are against the law, such as FCPS application of Title IX) you are acknowledging and agreeing to the terms for other clauses of the SR&R with the exception of what you cross out.

Something tells me you are the type to post “Facebook does not have permission to…” every other month thinking it actually means something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
State Senator Roem posted the following (I didn’t cut/paste the entire post) which seems to show that the districts are following current statutes?


On August 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CA4 for short) ruled in favor of the plaintiff Gavin Grimm in the case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which directly affected public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn the ruling on June 28, 2021, which means the CA4 ruling from 2020 still stands today, almost exactly five years after the decision.

In that ruling, the judges wrote, "At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes."

You can read that ruling here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

Today, the Prince William County School Board joined four other Northern Virginia public school systems in rejecting a demand from the federal administration to break federal and state law regarding its restroom policy for transgender and gender nonconforming students.

You can read the Prince William Times story about it here:
https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-prince-william-schools-keeps-its-inclusive-transgender-bathroom-rules/article_7c0f9de9-d08d-4637-a278-f7bfceb30448.html

In response, "The U.S. Department of Education said Friday that it will take action against the school districts that are defying its order to reverse their policies," according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
https://richmond.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_b2d32a33-6a80-4b7f-8aac-27add1ff8b64.html

However, no action from the federal administration, Congress or Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the CA4 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board -- not even the United States v. Skrmetti decision from June 18 of this year.

What that means is, regardless of whether anyone personally supports or opposes the outcome of the ruling, public school systems in Virginia have to follow the law and the CA4 ruling is law.

In addition to that, this is also a matter of state law.

§ 2.2-3900 of the Code of Virginia -- known as the Virginia Human Rights Act -- states in Section B, Paragraph 1 that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to "Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions."

You can read the Virginia Human Rights Act here:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-human-rights-act/

Woke ruling, by a woke court at the height of the woke movement. SC will have to step in and correct. SC is going to have a very busy schedule over the next few years.

Ok, so regardless of your opinion of it being “woke” (and I’m one who agrees that biological males should not be on women teams), we agree that the school districts’ stance falls correctly under current law.

Which is why the administration has to step in and take a hard line. So that federal law (Title IX) is affirmed as the law of the land by the SC and girls/woman are protected. Fastest way to solve the problem.

Ok, but are agreeing to what Sen Roem wrote, which was to say that the districts’ policies abide by current law as they stand?

The current policies violate Federal law (Title IX) so the state statute becomes irrelevant.

Please know I’m not arguing, only asking to clarify. Doesn’t this court ruling (read the summary), say that the policies do not violate federal law?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/19-1952/19-1952-2020-08-26.html

The beginning of the summary states: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender.

Prediction: it will be overturned.

Yep it would be best to comply rather than draw the SCOTUS attention. Soon to be the law of the land. Talk about a self own.

You got a good point here!

In the meanwhile since school starts in a couple of days, FCPS students shouldn’t feel obligated to sign the SR&R because it has clauses that pertain to Title IX that are against the law. Or if they do, they can cross out anything pertaining FCPS’ erroneous application of Title IX, and then sign it. Parents can do the same. Of course, they can always apply the same MO of FCPS and request an “extension” to “review” the SR&R until November before signing it? Most likely by then these clauses will be removed because the SC will have ruled in favor of women and girls in our schools. A good lesson in civics for our students!

I have 2 teens in FCPS. I will tell them both to not sign the SR&R this year since it is in clear conflict with Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

Isn’t signing it just an acknowledgment of having received/reviewed it?

You can either NOT sign it at all and ask for an extent until the SC rules on the issue, or cross out anything pertaining Title IX and after that sign it. By signing it as it is, you would be agreeing to the terms, which imply penalties if you disagree with trans policies in FCPS. However, if you cross out that part, (or other parts that are against the law, such as FCPS application of Title IX) you are acknowledging and agreeing to the terms for other clauses of the SR&R with the exception of what you cross out.

I don’t think so. It means you acknowledge receipt, not that you agree with it: