The New Hampshire School Board Association has bailed on its policy JBABA, the transgender guidance proposed to NH districts a few years back, leaving districts facing lawsuits in the lurch. That would be SAU16 (Exeter), SAU37 (Manchester), and SAU73 (Gilford).
Interesting.
Over and over again, I was told that Policy JBAB was a direct result of the passage of the Democrat-sponsored bill, SB263 (below), back in 2019 (and signed by Gov. Chris Sununu). It added gender identity to the “protected class” of people and I’ll come back to that in a few minutes.
As you may know, I brought suit against the Gilford School Board over JBAB for two things: Coercive Speech (anyone on school grounds MUST use “preferred pronouns” contra the US and NH Constitutions, as well as demanding that their staff LIE to Parents about the transgender status of their child.
Well, fellow Grokster Ann Marie Banfield put in a Right To Know/RSA 91-A demand to the NH School Board Association (emphasis mine):
Pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA, 91-1), I am requesting public access, within 5 business days, to the governmental records:
1) A copy of all correspondence from the New Hampshire School Boards Association to school administrators and/or board members in New Hampshire referencing board policy JBAB from September of 2021 until today. This would include emails, directives, policy recommendations, press releases or any other form of written communication.
Per RSA 91-A:4IV(C) If you deny any portion of this request, please cite the specific exemption used to justify the denial to make each record, or part thereof, available for inspection along with a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the information withheld.
Please let me know when these records are available for inspection or you may email the records to me at Banfieldannmarie@gmail.com.
Thank you for your lawful attention to this matter.
While NHSBA Exec. Dir. Barret Christina protested (but only a bit) that the NHSBA is a private entity, he did send some documents which Ann Marie shared with me. One was labeled “NHSBA Spring 2022 Policy Updates” and had this in the Table of Contents which NATURALLY caught my eye:
Special Statement Concerning Former Sample JBAB ………………………………………………. 4
Let me give you, IMHO, the real short Executive Summary: Oh Crap! Captain, full Cover Our A$$e$ mode! Emphasis mine
Special Statement Concerning Removal of Former Sample JBAB
In February 2022, NHSBA removed former optional sample policy JBAB – Transgender & Non-Conforming Students from its sample policy database. Sample JBAB was released in 2015 after NHSBA received requests for such a sample from multiple NHSBA member districts.
Since 2015, when NHSBA first made sample optional policy JBAB available in the NHSBA policy database, the legal protections based upon gender identify and the legal landscape relating to gender identity has changed in several important ways. The two most significant developments are:
1. In 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Bostock v. Clayton County. That case concerned employee protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,. In its opinion the Court stated: “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being … transgender without discriminating … based on sex.” Bostock v. Clayton Co., 500 U.S. ___ (2020). Although the Bostock decision specifically concerned Title VII, education attorneys and legal commentators throughout the country believe that the rationale in that case extends equally to Title IX of the Education Acts of 1972, which prohibits discrimination against any person “based on sex” relative to any “education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
This was about a gay man working for the Government who started to play in a gay softball league and was fired for being gay. It said NOTHING about preferred pronouns / Coerced Speech / Canceling Freedom of Speech and NOTHING about lying to Parents about the transgender status of their child. It had nothing to do with Gender Identity but, as you see above, transgender/legal activists decided to run with it as if it did.
2. In 2019, New Hampshire passed RSA 193:38, providing in part: “No person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in public schools because of their … sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ….”
Although it appears clear from the Bostock decision and RSA 198:38 that discrimination of a student or employee based upon gender identity/status is unlawful, what those authorities mean, and what constitutes prohibited discrimination, are still open questions. There are a myriad of issues concerning transgender protections in public schools currently being litigated in New Hampshire and throughout the country. Disputed issues include athletic participation, directed pronoun usage, parent right to information, student privacy, and others.
Note the couching of the language that the NHSBA tries to foist off on School Boards: while Bostock was about sexual orientation, the NHSBA left “that arena” and immediately flipped and entered “the transgender arena” – with no intervening law. It’s like what the Left has done – redefining “gender” (which historically was just a more genteel Victorian way of talking about “sex”) to be about “identity”. Is being homosexual now a gender identity, in support of yet another political agenda item that the NHSBA is pushing, or a sexual attraction one?
Can’t have it both ways, can they?
Again, see SB263 below – tell me, upon a plain reading of the actual words, do you see “preferred pronouns”? Or “we can now lie to parents”? So, let me give you a better translation of the bolded words above. After all, they sound so innocuous, don’t they?
- “Directed Pronoun usage” – We, a mere School Board and a lowly subdivision of the State, have the Power to crush your Freedom of Speech. We have the Power to tell you to say what your lying eyes tells you is impossible.
- “Student Privacy” – along with the next item, We, a mere subdivision of the State, have the Power to totally turn the relationship of a Parent and Child totally upside down in which the Child is in charge of the family and not the Parents. This should tell you what they REALLY think of you as Parents.
- “Parent Right to Information” – this is quite the laugh; you would think from a casual reading “of COURSE I have the Right to information about my child. Silly person – you have none when it comes to your child. You have no such Right anymore as We, a mere subdivision of the State, are forcing our staff to lie through their teeth to not tell you what the transgender status of your child is. Just ask Gilford Elementary School Principal Danielle Bolduc what she had to say about my legal son when I asked “Danielle, what is the transgender status of my son?” at the last School Board Meeting…
…Right after Jeanine Onos, Chair of the Board, made it clear that if you have any questions or concerns, we are to ask the school Administrators. OK, you set the New Rules, I just followed it to the letter.
NHSBA sample policy AC includes the prohibition against discrimination based upon gender identity. However, that policy does not in and of itself provide guidance to school staff or students about how that prohibition is achieved. Former JBAB included a multitude of provisions local districts could consider in the effort to protect against unlawful discrimination based upon gender identity. However, NHSBA believes that the unsettled in this area of law, indicates that local boards should seek advice from private counsel to determine the best course of action in their respective districts to meet the legal requirements and minimize litigation exposure. This suggestion extends to Districts which have previously adopted sample JBAB or other policies addressing protection against discrimination based upon gender identity.
They realize that they’ve now been Mike Tyson’d: “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
The problem is that they lined up several School Districts to get the punch in the mouth instead of themselves. Now they are running away from what they’ve done knowing Tyson is coming for them?
The above is just GREAT! Notice how carefully they just shoved the legal responsibility from themselves onto the School Districts. They wrote it, they have attorneys on staff to vet what they wrote, they publicized the Policy, they have given advice about it to multiple Districts and NOW they are effectively telling Districts:
Sayonara – You’re on your own with this! Good luck!
They are to rely on their own (mostly, IMHO) scumbag Ed lawyers on this? They know that the legal mud is flying toward the automated air recycling device on the ceiling and they are now running away as fast as they can.
My counsel to my school board would be to sue the NHSBA. Tackle them, be those Lilliputians that tie down “NHSBA Gulliver,” and have your way with them.
SB263:
SB 263 – AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE
03/28/2019 1141s
03/28/2019 1290s
8May2019… 1690h
2019 SESSION
19-0995
08/05
SENATE BILL 263
AN ACT relative to anti-discrimination protection for students in public schools.
SPONSORS: Sen. Sherman, Dist 24; Sen. Fuller Clark, Dist 21; Sen. Hennessey, Dist 5; Sen. Levesque, Dist 12; Sen. Rosenwald, Dist 13; Sen. D’Allesandro, Dist 20; Sen. Watters, Dist 4; Rep. Cannon, Straf. 18; Rep. M. Smith, Straf. 6; Rep. Altschiller, Rock. 19; Rep. Janvrin, Rock. 37; Rep. Ley, Ches. 9
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
—————————————————————–
AMENDED ANALYSIS
This bill creates a cause of action for persons injured by discrimination in public schools.
This bill also creates a cause of action for the attorney general in cases of discrimination in public schools.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
03/28/2019 1141s
03/28/2019 1290s
8May2019… 1690h 19-0995
08/05
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nineteen
AN ACT relative to anti-discrimination protection for students in public schools.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Subdivision; Discrimination in Public Schools. Amend RSA 193 by inserting after section 37 the following new subdivision:
Discrimination in Public Schools
193:38 Discrimination in Public Schools. No person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in public schools because of their age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, marital status, familial status, disability, religion, or national origin, all as defined in RSA 354-A. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory practice prohibited under this section, including the attorney general, may initiate a civil action against a school or school district in superior court for legal or equitable relief, or with the New Hampshire commission for human rights, as provided in RSA 354-A:27-28.
193:39 Discrimination Prevention Policy Required. Each school district and chartered public school shall develop a policy that guides the development and implementation of a coordinated plan to prevent, assess the presence of, intervene in, and respond to incidents of discrimination on the basis of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, marital status, familial status, disability, religion, national origin, or any other classes protected under RSA 354-A.
2 New Subdivision; Opportunity for Public Education Without Discrimination a Civil Right. Amend RSA 354-A by inserting after section 26 the following new subdivision:
Opportunity for Public Education Without Discrimination a Civil Right
354-A:27 Opportunity for Public Education Without Discrimination a Civil Right. No person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in public schools because of their age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, marital status, familial status, disability, religion or national origin, all as defined in this chapter.
354-A:28 Procedure on Public School Complaints.
I. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory practice prohibited under RSA 354-A:27 may initiate a civil action in superior court against a school or school district for legal or equitable relief, or file a complaint with the commission as provided in RSA 354-A:21. The attorney general may also initiate such a civil action in superior court or by complaint with the commission.
II. Any complaint filed with the commission pursuant to paragraph I shall comply with and be subject to the procedures outlined in this chapter, with the exception that such complaints may be removed to superior court at any time in compliance with RSA 508:4
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
