Several families have filed a federal lawsuit against numerous Obama administration officials and the Virginia (Minnesota) School District for permitting a sexually confused boy to confront half-naked girls in their locker rooms. After the girls and their parents complained, the school suggested they use a private room, but the boy follows them there repeatedly and harasses them by raising his dress and otherwise exposing himself.
"No student should be forced to use private facilities at school, like locker rooms and restrooms, with students of the opposite sex. No government agency should hold hostage important education funding to advance an unlawful agenda."
Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF] is fighting a Virginia, Minnesota school district. The conservative group filed a lawsuit on the behalf of 11 families who want to stop the allowance of the opposite sex in their children’s locker rooms, Fox News reports. The lawsuit named Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Virginia School District #706, and Secretary of Education John King Jr. as defendants.
The lawsuit filed said that a transgender student, only identified as Student X, used the female locker rooms and restrooms and participated on girl athletic teams. The ADF said that Student X violated some girls by twerking in their presence, dancing to suggestive songs, and making jokes about a girl’s bra size.
According to the lawsuit, girls who were uncomfortable with Student X were told they could use another locker room. One student, called Plaintiff A, said that she was told she could change in an empty boy’s locker room but Student X followed her in there. Plaintiff A said there was nowhere to go for privacy.
The ADF lawsuit explains that the [federal] DOE and DOJ are unlawfully redefining the terms of Title IX, something that only Congress can alter, and are illegitimately forcing their political will on all public schools across the nation. As the lawsuit points out, no federal law requires schools to allow boys into girls’ locker rooms or girls into boys’ locker rooms, and other courts have rejected the agencies’ interpretation to the contrary. The lawsuit also explains that the DOE did not comply with key provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted its rules.
The complaint explains some of the real concerns of students and parents, such as when a biologically male student who identifies as a female—and who is allowed to enter the girls’ locker room under the district’s policy—went on to dance in the locker room “in a sexually explicit manner—‘twerking,’ ‘grinding’ and dancing like he was on a ‘stripper pole’ to songs with explicit lyrics, including ‘Milkshake’ by Kelis. On another occasion, a female student saw the male student lift his dress to reveal his underwear while ‘grinding’ to the music.”
"What these girls are asking for is something that for all of American history has been the common-sense presumption, that you have facilities for girls, facilities for boys and any student that is uncomfortable with that — including the transgender student at the heart of this case, (who) they're not uncompassionate to — they would think the best thing would be for this student to have the option to use the ... restroom of (the student's) biological sex or to make one of the single-stall restrooms available for (the student) to use," said Matt Sharp, an attorney with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious legal advocacy nonprofit group.
The lawsuit seeks to have the district's policy and the federal guidance declared unlawful, and a permanent injunction issued against both. It also seeks "an award of nominal damages in the amount of one dollar, and compensatory damages" for each plaintiff, along with legal fees.
Virginia Superintendent Noel Schmidt declined to comment Thursday, and the school district's attorney, John Colosimo, couldn't be reached for comment.
Gay/Transgender Agenda advocates advancing the government-backed "Safe Schools" program are heralding "transgender" preschoolers who choose sexual mutilation surgery prior to kindergarten as well as their doctors who perform the procedures in Australia.
“We have a number of students who are going through gender transition in our schools, with the youngest being a four-year-old at the moment.” -- Gregory Prior, Deputy Secretary of School Operations, New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education
While the child is the youngest on Australian record to to change their gender, the New South Wales government has revealed "hundreds" of other children are being referred to the state's hospitals for gender dysphoria.
The four-year-old is reportedly being supported throughout the transition by the education department, and is part of the Safe Schools program.
According to News Corp, data from the Westmead Children Hospital stated that referrals for gender dysphoria have tripled.
The report said another major hospital in Melbourne had 250 children who were being assisted by the gender dysphoria unit. A decade ago it had just one.
[Some psychologists] maintain pre-school children are still at a very early stage of their development for such a major decision to be made. . . . The youngest child involved is just three years of age.
Transgender advocate and Australian of the Year finalist Catherine McGregor advised caution and said proper checks needed to be in place to ensure premature mistakes were not made.
“In my experience, kids with strong cross-gender identification tend to get it right.
"However, I can understand there would be caution on the part of the department and medical practitioners on making any irreversible decisions at that stage.”
Prominent transgender advocate Catherine McGregor has been sacked from a high-profile role with human rights group Kaleidoscope Australia for speaking out against the controversial Safe Schools program.
Writing for Sydney’s The Daily Telegraph in May, Ms McGregor argued the program had been compromised by radical left-wing politics and was not the most effective way of supporting transgender children. She claimed the program might lead transgender youth down a “blind alley”.
Ms McGregor, who was the world’s highest-ranking transgender military official and an Australian of the Year nominee, told The Australian she was disappointed by the reaction to her comments. It had cost her at least one speaking engagement. A Melbourne charity advised that it no longer wanted her to appear at an LGBTI event because it feared a hostile reaction.
“I’ve always been very happy to support various causes within the LGBTI community because I truly believe that, as a transgender woman who has been able to achieve a lot in my career in the military and as a writer and broadcaster, that I can contribute a lot,” Ms McGregor said.
“But it’s quite obvious that my views are more conservative than sections of the LGBTI community are happy to accept. I’ve really just had enough.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State plans to sue the Berkeley County School District based in Moncks Corner, South Carolina because the Board has voted to ignore the atheists' threats and continue a years-long practice of opening board meetings with the Lord's Prayer.
“We’re Americans, aren’t we? Looking back at where our nation began we cannot, cannot as a nation forget we have a God and all that we do we must acknowledge that. Let’s continue to do the right thing … there’s nothing wrong with public prayer as long as we do it in accordance with the law.” -- Julius Barnes, board member
The Post and Courier of Charleston reports the school board gave initial approval Tuesday after dropping the use of the prayer earlier this year. The board has been using a moment of silence instead.
State Sen. Larry Grooms sent the board a letter signed by 50 state lawmakers citing a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming the right to pray at public meetings. Gov. Nikki Haley last month signed a state law allowing school boards the right to open meetings with prayer.
Despite receiving a letter the day before its meeting saying prayer at school board meetings violates the U.S. Constitution, Berkeley County School District’s school board has unanimously voted for the first of two readings on a policy that would bring prayer back to the beginning of its meetings.
The policy states:
“The public invocation will be non-sectarian and non-denominational, and will not proselytize for or advance any one or disparage any other, faith or belief. The public invocation is for the benefit of the Board, but no member of the Board, or any other person, attending, the meeting, will be required to participate in the public invocation. The public invocation will be offered on a voluntary basis by a member of the Board selected by the Board Chair or his/her designee.”
During the Aug. 9 meeting, the board members lauded the new policy.
In July, state Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Charleston, sent a letter to board members — signed by 50 legislators — citing a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway, which reaffirmed the right to pray at public meetings. Additionally on June 3, Gov. Nikki Haley signed an amendment to the Public Prayer and Invocation Act that includes a school board as being as a “deliberative body” with the right to open meetings with an invocation.
“I appreciate everyone’s hard work on working through this policy in light of the threats we’ve gotten,” said board member Mac McQuillin, a lawyer.
“It took courage for us to do this motion and I’m proud.”
The Satanic Temple has launched a nation-wide campaign to force public schools to sanction “Educatin’ with Satan” after-school programs in every school that allows Christian clubs. Stu De Haan, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple’s Arizona chapter, said he has received expressions of interest in the new clubs from parents, teachers and students.
“[Schools] cannot prohibit students from forming an After School Satan Club on the same terms as the [Christian] Good News Club.” -- Richard Katskee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The Satanic Temple says it’s bringing the After-School Satan club to schools across the country that now host the evangelical Christian Good News Club, including Centennial Elementary in Mount Vernon and Point Defiance Elementary in Tacoma.
Tarkus Claypool, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple’s Seattle chapter, said the Good News Club indoctrinates children into superstitious, fear-based religion. In contrast, Claypool said, "we’re indoctrinating them into scientific, logical, rationalist, non-superstitious worldview. The program includes an art project and a curriculum that is based in free inquiry.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution allows Good News Clubs [sponsored by the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF)] to meet on school grounds.
The Satanic Temple opposes religion in the schoolhouse, but says if it’s allowed, the same privilege must be granted to all religions.
Several U.S. school districts indicated Monday that they think the Satanic Temple’s plan to open “After School Satan” clubs in elementary schools probably conforms with their policies and local laws, and the Prince George’s County, Md., school system said it is reviewing a request to open such a club.
Parents and administrators have reacted coolly to the idea of setting up a Jesus-vs.-Satan fight in their elementary schools, with many showing curiosity and skepticism. School officials in Prince George’s said they have received a request to start a club and are reviewing it, but the school system has not had any discussions with the Satanic Temple about it. The Temple said it wants to open a club at Bradbury Heights Elementary School, which is in the Capitol Heights neighborhood just outside the southeast edge of Washington.
Martha Wright, executive director of CEF of Maryland, acknowledged that the Satanic Temple has a right to have clubs in schools but also said she doesn’t really want the group there.
CEF actively works to counteract Satan in its work, and a CEF instruction book titled “Guard Your Heart” promises “a flocked lesson helping kids ages 6-11 guard against Satan’s attacks.”
The Satanic Temple’s proposal to start After School Satan Clubs in schools across the country already has sparked conflict with at least one school district and has led a legal group to offer free assistance in fighting the emergence of the clubs.
The Roskruge Bilingual K-8 School in Tucson is one of eight schools that received a written proposal to establish an After School Satan Club on Monday, and on Tuesday, lawyers for the Tucson Unified School District demanded that the Satanic Temple remove the school’s name from its website. The temple listed Roskruge as a place where it has offered to present its curriculum, but the district argues that no club has been approved there.
Lucien Greaves, co-founder of the Satanic Temple, said the group does not intend to take the school’s name off its website. . . .
Mat Staver, founder of a Christian legal aid group that has represented the Child Evangelism Fellowship, said Greaves’ organization was illegitimate and an “atheist group masquerading” as religious. Greaves described Satanism as an atheist philosophy whose believers “feel it provides everything a religion provides to be legitimized as such.”
Greaves said his group could pose tough legal fights if its requests are denied.
In Utah, the Granite School District said that if the group meets set requirements, including paying rent, there’s nothing the district can do to stop it. District spokesman Ben Horsley said the group won’t be able to put up fliers in schools or talk to students during school hours, the same arrangement given to the Good News Club.
Elmore County School Superintendent, Dr. Andre Harrison, was quick to agree with a lone atheist that it's unconstitutional for the Holtville High School Marching Band in Deatsville, Alabama to play "Amazing Grace," but after his ban on the hymn caused a citizen revolt, Harrison was told by school counsel that it's OK to play Christian music at football games.
"I was reminded that, as a public school, we simply cannot endorse a religious message in our activities. I completely understand the frustration of some of our parents, but we have an obligation to follow the law, even when we don't want to." -- Superintendent Andre Harrison's initial statement
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Dr. Andre' Harrison said that the same person who complained to the district about the song also called the school's central office twice to say that the playing of "Amazing Grace" was unconstitutional.
"After word of my decision circulated, I heard from many concerned parents, and frankly I still had reservations about my initial decision. I asked counsel to do further research on this issue and present me with options that would keep the district in legal compliance, but permit performance of one of the most iconic songs in the history of our nation," Harrison said today.
In a statement to the Elmore & Autauga News, the Elmore County Board of Education said legal counsel recommended that the religious-themed song be pulled from the band's repertoire following the complaint.
"Our Constitution prohibits us from promoting religion in our educational programs and activities," the statement read, in part. "While we understand the feelings of the parents who are unhappy about the decision, we have an obligation to comply with the law."
Superintendent Dr. Andre' Harrison also issued this statement to the website: "When the question was raised about the band playing Amazing Grace, a song we all grew up singing, my first reaction was this is a message that should be celebrated. But, after consulting with legal counsel, I was reminded that, as a public school, we simply cannot endorse a religious message in our activities. I completely understand the frustration of some of our parents, but we have an obligation to follow the law, even when we don't want to."
School officials didn't say who issued the complaint, but it appeared to have come by telephone.
A new study issued by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) concludes that students at schools that provide free condoms have ten percent higher birth rates, and independent research shows that twenty percent of teens say that instruction on contraceptives encourages them to have sex.
We find clear evidence that access to condoms in schools leads to an increase in teen fertility. . . . School condom distribution programs could encourage risky sexual behaviors, promote the use of the condom over methods that better prevent pregnancy, or cause schools to shift resources away from more effective programs. -- Kasey Buckles and Daniel M. Hungerman, Notre Dame University economists
A new data analysis of in-school condom distribution programs from the 1990s has added new complexity to our understanding of teen pregnancy prevention. Most previous studies have shown that access to free contraception decreases teen birth rates, but this is the first robust study of condom-only programs. Researchers Kasey Buckles and Daniel Hungerman of the University of Notre Dame found that teen births rose 10 percent at schools that gave out free condoms to students.
. . . The authors tracked pregnancy rates before and after the condom programs were introduced in each school, and they compared these numbers to the pregnancy rates at schools that had no condom program at all and the pregnancy rates among young women aged 20 to 24 in the same areas as the school. This allowed them to control for the possibility that broader societal shifts were driving the rising pregnancy rates in the schools that offered free condoms.
. . . the theoretical effects of providing free birth control to teenagers actually are ambiguous. On the one hand, condoms can prevent pregnancy if used correctly. On the other hand, providing teenagers with free birth control might increase sexual activity, and thus have the unintended effect of increasing teen fertility.
Buckles and Hungerman propose several possible explanations for their findings. Perhaps free condoms serve as a substitute for more reliable forms of birth control, such as the pill. Or perhaps they nudge a teenager who might otherwise be on the margins of becoming sexually active into engaging in sexual activity.
Ultimately, the authors suggest that their data best fits an interesting explanation that was first presented in a 1999 paper in the American Journal of Public Health, which found that condom use actually declined as condoms became more available in schools. . . .
It’s not entirely clear if today’s teens would respond to free condoms in the same way as the ’90s-era teens of Buckles’ and Hungerman’s research. Today’s teenagers are less likely to be sexually active and have access to more reliable forms of birth control, research has found.
Buckles and Hungerman compared teen births at schools that provided students with condoms—some provided counseling on the contraceptive method and some did not—with teen girls in places without school condom programs and slightly older girls in the same location.
Leading social scientist Dr. Michael J. New told LifeSiteNews that Buckles and Hungerman’s study “breaks new ground” because there has not been as much research on the impact of condom distribution programs in high schools as there has been on the impact of oral contraceptives.
“Overall, this study adds to a substantial body of research which shows that efforts to encourage contraception use through legalization, distribution or subsidies are ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst,” continued New. “Even the Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that availability of the birth control pill in the 1960s led to higher rates of teen sexual activity. Furthermore, another Guttamcher study found simultaneous increases in contraceptive use and abortion rates in the United States, Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, Singapore, and South Korea.”
According to Ascend — an organization formerly known as the National Abstinence Education Association — President and CEO Valerie Huber explained that the aforementioned survey her organization conducted in partnership with the Barna Group divulged that two times the number of males — compared to females — came away from condom demonstrations at schools with the message that they were expected to have sex.
“[School programs that] normalize teen sex [and imply] sexual activity is a normal part of adolescent development, [combined with] condom distribution within even the class or maybe in the school clinic [mean schools are] tacitly saying and sometimes explicitly saying, ‘Hey, as long as you use this, you don’t have to worry about any of the consequences,’” Huber insists.
The pro-family leader maintains that the misleading message that teen pregnancies and the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases will not happen to them — in addition to the fact that underdeveloped adolescent brains are incapable of making fulling rational decisions — work together to create the “perfect storm” that can devastate the lives of teens.
Administrators at Desert Rose Elementary School in Palmdale, California banned first-grader Caleb Zavala from sharing Bible verses (notes given to him by his mother, Christina Zavala) to classmates during lunchtime, and then the Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff was dispatched to the family home to further forbid the boy from sharing his faith with anyone, anywhere on school property because "someone might be offended."
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
When one child shared one of these notes with the first-grade teacher, telling her, "this is the most beautiful story I've ever seen," the teacher intervened. After publicly rebuking the Zavala boy, she called Mr. and Mrs. Zavala and, invoking separation of church and state, told them that their son was not allowed to share bible verses on school grounds. The teacher was unimpressed with Mrs. Zavala's correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause and stated that if they wanted to share bible, it would have to be outside the school gates.
According, Mrs. Zavala and her son proceeded to hand out bible verses and stories to her son's friends at the school gate for a brief period after school let out. According to the Zavala's many children congregated to receive the stories.
On May 9, 2016, when Mr. Jaime Zavala came to pick up his son and distribute bible verses, he was approached by School Principal Pagliagro. Pagliagro told Mr. Zavala that it was "against school policy" to hand the bible notes out at the school gate and they would have to move onto the sidewalk, which was a "public place." Jaime and his son complied and soon returned home. It was at 4:30 pm on that day that the LA Deputy Sheriff knocked on their door, telling them the school had called to report that the child and his parents had been sharing papers at school and that this was not permitted.
Mrs. Zavala made it a practice of including a Bible verse and encouraging note in her son’s lunch bag. The boy would tell his friends about the note and read them aloud at the lunch table.
It wasn’t long before children asked for copies of the notes and Mrs. Zavala obliged – including a brief note to explain the daily Bible verse.
“This is a clear, gross violation of the rights of a child,” said Horatio Mihet, a Liberty Counsel attorney representing the first-grader who attends Desert Rose Elementary School in Palmdale. They are also representing his parents, Christina and Jaime Zavala.
“It was outrageous and should shock the conscious of every freedom-loving American,” Mihet told me. “Apparently all the real criminals have been dealt with in Palmdale – and now they’re going after kids who share Bible verses during lunch time.”
The Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation organization which specializes in defending religious freedom, has since sent a letter to the Palmdale School District to inform the administration of the correct interpretation of the clause establishing separation of church and state, arguing that pupils have the right to exercise freedom of speech through printed materials.
"Therefore, it was improper to ban student religious discussion during lunchtime. The district cannot suppress and censor this discussion, or the one-page notes consisting of Bible stories and verses placed by C's mother in C's lunch for his own personal enjoyment and edification; which he voluntarily chose to share with his little friends during non-instructional time; which interested classmates were free to accept or refuse, at their own discretion," the letter stated.
"The additional copies requested by C from his mother, for his friends (who had specifically requested them from him), are likewise protected, and fall into no classification of material that might be lawfully prohibited by the school district," it added.
Washington state education officials have not announced to the public their plans, in two months, to begin teaching all K-12 school students the Gay/transgender Agenda anti-science “core idea” of human "gender spectrum." Will Big Brother allow parents to teach their children, "male and female, God created them?"
“We don’t exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught.” -- Nathan Olson, Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
. . . The new standards were finalized in March but OSPI has yet to issue a press release informing the public of the changes.
Olson said that the decision to implement specific “learning outcomes” lies with individual districts. Districts can craft their own curriculums, he said, as long as they “align with state learning standards.”
“The standards don’t define ‘gender spectrum.’ But self-identity is a key component,” Olson said when TheDC asked whether learning that gender is a “spectrum” is considered part of learning about “gender identity.”
The Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is responsible for developing and periodically revising the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs), which identify the knowledge and skills all public school students need to know and be able to do. OSPI is committed to helping educators provide high-quality instruction. In an effort to stay current to state and national language, research, and information, changes have been made to the structure, format, and vocabulary of the 2016 Health Education K–12 Learning Standards.
To read the entire government edict above, CLICK HERE.
Kindergarten: Understand there are many ways to express gender.
Grade 1: Explain that there are many ways to express gender.
Grade 2: Understand there is a range of gender roles and expression. Understand importance of treating others with respect regarding gender expression.
Grade 3: Explain that gender roles can vary considerably. Understand importance of treating others with respect regarding gender identity.
Grade 4: Identify how friends and family can influence ideas regarding gender roles, identity, and expression. Demonstrate ways to show respect for all people. Define sexual orientation.
Grade 5: Describe how media, society, and culture can influence ideas regarding gender roles, identity, and expression. Promote ways to show respect for all people. Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation.
Grade 6: Understand the range of gender roles, identity, and expression across cultures.
Grade 7: Distinguish between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
Grade 8: Recognize external influences that shape attitudes about gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
High School: Evaluate how culture, media, society, and other people influence our perceptions of gender roles, sexuality, relationships, and sexual orientation.
Health Education Glossary
Gender: A social construct based on emotional, behavioral, and cultural characteristics attached to a person’s assigned biological sex. A person’s social and/or legal status as male or female.
• Gender expression. The way someone outwardly expresses their gender, whether consciously or unconsciously.
• Gender identity. Someone’s inner sense of their gender (see Transgender).
• Gender roles. Social expectations about how people should act, think, or feel based on their assigned biological sex.
Transgender: A broad term describing people whose gender expression is nonconforming and/or whose gender identity is different from the gender they were assigned at birth.
To read the entire government edict above, CLICK HERE.
There will be no invocation or benediction at commencement ceremonies at Pottsgrove High School in Pottstown, Pennsylvania this year because last year a single, anonymous complaint frightened school officials into a panic. As a result, constitutionally-protected, student-initiated Christian free speech has been officially banned.
"The decision was made after last year's graduation when a student went off script from the nondenominational prayer that has been done over the years and turned it into a very Christian prayer." -- Rick Rabinowitz, school board president
"It was offensive to someone else in the audience and it was reported to me that it was offensive and religious in nature and that we should stop it." -- Shellie A. Feola, Superintendent
Justin Valentine was school board president during 2015 graduation and said a complaint from another board member was the reason prayer was pulled.
"What happened was there was one person, one complaint that we received, and that's what triggered this," he said. "We knew the driving force behind this not happening again."
Valentine declined to identify the individual.
Current board member Patricia Grimm was also on the board in August when the decision on prayer was made.
"To me, it's (prayer) student driven," she said. "This is a tradition we always have regardless of the law and this is what the students want. I know there was a lot of discussion about the student going off of his intended speech but there was only one complaint."
The change apparently is the result of one student’s decision to invoke Jesus Christ in his comments at last year’s graduation.
As a result, [Supt.] Feola consulted the district’s longtime Solicitor Marc Davis, who told her a 2000 ruling in California made the district’s practice illegal.
. . . although the decision was made in August, it did not become a public discussion until Thursday, part of discussion on Facebook — particularly among board members, and two former school board presidents.
“This is very disappointing to me too,” wrote board member Bill Parker. “While the district, due to case law, can not direct that there be a prayer as part of the ceremony, we can also not violate freedom of speech.”
Mike Neiffer, who served as school board president prior to Valentine and acknowledged that there are legal issues to be considered, posted “I think the issue is that the change doesn’t appear to have been discussed in public nor was the public allowed to comment on it. As for me, let the students decide. It’s their graduation.”
Board members of the East Liverpool City School District demonstrated their ignorance of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, as well as their gullibility to atheist bullying when they decided to end the decades-long tradition of the school choir singing The Lord's Prayer at the East Liverpool High School commencement.
"When I was first on this board I expressed a concern about us singing. The comment made was that 'we know we are breaking the law, we will do it until we get caught.' Well, ladies and gentlemen we got caught." -- Board President Larry Walton
When East Liverpool High School seniors graduate later this month, singing the Lord's Prayer will not be a part of the ceremony.
After a complaint by a parent, the district received a letter from The Freedom From Religion Foundation [FFRF, based in Wisconsin,] citing legal rulings on the separation of church and state.
. . . Larry Walton tells 21 News that the prayer has been part of commencement for the ten years he has been with the school.
However he says following the complaints, the school will no longer the prayer during the ceremony.
[Choir director Lisa] Ensinger said she sang the song at her own graduation and, when interviewed for her position, was asked what would happen if she was ever told students could not sing it.
"I said, 'That's the day I resign,' and now it's happened and my heart is broken," Ensinger told the board, adding that the Lord's Prayer has been sung for district graduations for 70 years and saying, "I hate to see that go. When we stop having traditions what do we have left?"
President Larry Walton said, "The Supreme Court says we can't do it," saying other districts have tried to fight it and, in at least one, the legal costs were more than $850,000.
Board member Richard Wolf questioned, "I don't know when we voted on this. Did we vote on this? If it's student initiated, it's like prayer at the flag pole. If those people want to institute a lawsuit, let them."
Since no public discussion or vote on the issue were held by the school board, the newspaper made a public records request for all emails between board members and [Superintendent Melissa] Watson to determine how the decision was made.
[The newspaper obtained] a flurry of emails between board members and Watson through May 1 in regard to the matter, with President Larry Walton the first to respond, saying, "Let us just not do it. We have 'gotten away' with it for 10 years. This is a battle we will lose. I don't believe we should waste our funds on such a legal encounter."
. . . [Board member Patricia Persohn wrote,] "I am hearing parents threatening to withdraw their students. I was elected to represent the views of the community, and they are screaming. At the time that I voted to replace the song, I thought we were being threatened with lawsuit. I do believe it is just a matter of time before we are engaged in a fight. We need to set this issue aside right now and move on. I will vote to let the song remain in the program."
In her initial emailed response, board member Sarah Porter said, "I'm OK with a lawsuit. I'm a Catholic girl, lol, I'm not opposed to the Lord's Prayer. In this day and age, I think the majority of the public will back us if a lawsuit is brought forth."
To read more of the internal E-mails of the board members printed in the article above, CLICK HERE.
"As a person of faith it means a great deal to me as you know, but as an educator I see this as an opening to a very broad door that can cause great detriment to our music education program," said Ensinger.
As a music educator she says she knows what is allowed and what it not. She says the rules are, if a piece of music has an educational value, it's permitted. So, she questions if the Lord's Prayer is not permitted, what other pieces would not be permitted?
"Mozart... his Requiem Mass, would no longer be allowed. Handel's Messiah would no longer be allowed. All of the music of the Medieval period would never be allowed," said Ensinger.
They say they just want to go to the bathroom and take a shower in private!
Parents and students who formed North Carolinians for Privacy have filed a lawsuit in the Raleigh, North Carolina Federal Court to stop President Obama from using billions of taxpayer dollars to hold them hostage to his Gay/Transgender Agenda that demands men be permitted to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms.
"The [U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education] must stop using falsehoods about what federal law requires to threaten student access to educational opportunities and financial assistance." -- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)
The suit accuses the U.S. Department of Justice and Education of holding federal education money hostage.
The group, North Carolinians for Privacy, argues that federal law does not forbid sex-specific restrooms and that the federal government is bullying North Carolina by threatening to cut federal funding.
The issue of whether transgender people deserve the same federal protections extended to blacks and religious minorities is already before courts in North Carolina.
The Justice Department sued the state on Monday, asking a federal district court to rule that North Carolina was violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act [Title IX] and order it to stop enforcing [the state's new HB2 that provides privacy in restrooms].
North Carolina stands to lose $4.8 billion in funds, mainly educational grants, if it does not back down, according to an analysis by lawyers at the University of California, Los Angeles Law School.
As far as the plaintiffs [North Carolinians for Privacy] are concerned, the defendant departments [of education and justice] are making student aid and other educational funding contingent on students sharing restrooms and locker rooms with members of the opposite sex.
They claim the DOJ and education department have overstepped their authority in redefining sex and gender under Title IX, and that students' constitutional right to privacy would be violated if the state or the University of North Carolina were to bow to federal demands that transgender students be afforded full access to bathrooms that do not comport with the gender identified on their birth certificates.
The group is represented by Jeremy Tedesco, James Campbell, Kristen Waggoner, Joseph LaRue, and Jonathan Caleb Dalton of the Alliance Defending Freedom of Scottsdale, Arizona, David Cortman and J. Matthew Sharp of the Alliance's Lawrenceville, Georgia chapter, and by Deborah Dewart of the Liberty, Life and Law Foundation of Swansboro, North Carolina.
Police were alerted to the Dopbox page on Wednesday by officials at Duxbury High School. Authorities worked with the Internet site to have the photos removed.
Duxbury Police Chief Matthew Clancy says some of the images were taken by friends or the subjects themselves. Others appeared to be fakes.
He says police were conducting interviews at the high school, but did not expect to charge any of the students there.
“There are some young people here who are very embarrassed and very upset,” Police Chief Matthew Clancy said in a statement. “They are victims. They made a mistake and someone took advantage of that. Unfortunately we are learning that many communities have been dealing with this very issue. We will join the Schools as needed and requested in educating students on the negative impacts of this activity.”
The department said officers are focusing on identifying the victims involved and the person responsible for creating the page.
[DropBox, the] San Francisco-headquartered company could take weeks to turn over data that could help investigators trace who started the Dropbox page and who used it to post or share the photos, Duxbury police Chief Matthew M. Clancy said, adding that search warrants of those people are likely to follow.
“It’s a very sensitive, private and embarrassing matter,” the chief said. “In most cases, these are selfies that were sent to a boyfriend. That’s a crime in Massachusetts, but we’re not treating it as one in the case of these girls. We want them to learn from this.
“We’re clearly identifying these girls as victims because that’s what they are,” said Clancy, who declined to say how many there are.
Both Duxbury Schools Superintendent Benedict Tantillo and high school Principal Blake A. Dalton did not return repeated calls yesterday. But Clancy said police will join school officials as needed to warn students about the dangers and the consequences of sharing nude photos of themselves or others.
[Chief Clancy] said police are investigating to determine who created and contributed to the site.
He or she could be looking at a decade-long prison sentence.
That's because even if the images originated as "sexts" and were shared willingly with a teenage boyfriend or girlfriend, they are still considered child pornography if the subject is under 18. That means that even before they made it on the website, the images were technically illegally shared if they were texted or emailed.
A conviction on a charge of distributing child pornography in Massachusetts carries a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum of 20 years.
Attorneys representing 73 parents and 63 students in suburban Chicago filed a lawsuit this week against the Obama Administration and the largest high school district in Illinois for colluding to invade the privacy of students in the girls restrooms and locker rooms using new unlawful "transgender rights" edicts.
“It’s important to recognize that there’s a lagging legal framework in the face of rapidly changing social norms. Our understanding of gender identity is changing, and the law hasn’t kept up.” -- Francisco Negrón, National School Boards Association General Counsel "No school should impose a policy like this against the will of so many parents.” -- Vicki Wilson, Illinois parent and co-founder of Students and Parents for Privacy (lead plaintiff) “Allowing boys into girls’ locker rooms, a setting where girls are often partially or fully unclothed, is a blatant violation of student privacy. The school district should rescind its privacy-violating policies, and the court should order the Department of Education to stop bullying school districts with falsehoods about what federal law requires.” -- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom “To impose such a rule on still-developing teenage girls, as they’re already struggling with puberty’s changes on their bodies and social pressures to look a certain way, undermines their dignity and tells them that their rights don’t matter. This isn’t a message our schools should be sending to our girls.” -- Jocelyn Floyd, Attorney, Thomas More Society
Lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom and Thomas More Society, two conservative groups, filed the 77-page suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago on behalf of 51 families with links to Palatine-based Township High School District 211. It names the district and the U.S. Department of Education as defendants.
The battle for access to girls' facilities at William Fremd High School by the transgender student — who was born male but identifies as female — helped spark a national debate last year that has since spread to other districts.
The [new transgender] policy, [the lawsuit] says, causes other girls fear and embarrassment. It adds: They are "afraid they will have to see a male in a state of undress," which, for some, is a "distraction throughout the school day." One girl's anxiety led her to wear gym clothes under her street clothes so she can peel just the outer clothes off in the locker.
A group of Illinois students and parents sued the Obama administration Wednesday over its stance on transgender students’ access to school bathrooms and locker rooms, arguing that the U.S. Education Department is illegally forcing local authorities to let children use facilities that correspond to their gender identity.
The complaint alleges that the federal government has violated students’ fundamental right to privacy and parents’ constitutional right to instill moral standards and values in their children.
The lawsuit represents the first legal challenge to the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, a federal anti-discrimination law, as providing transgender students with the right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity instead of their biological sex.
Palatine officials — facing the loss of $6 million in federal funding — ultimately decided to allow a transgender student to change in the girls locker room instead of sending her down the hall to a separate facility.
Students and Parents for Privacy and three female students sued the U.S. Department of Education, Secretary of Education John King, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Cook County, Ill., and the directors of Township High School District 211 in Illinois Federal Court on Wednesday.
"This is a civil rights action to stop the Department of Education and Township High School District 211 from continuing to trample students' privacy and other constitutional and statutory rights by forcing 14- to 17-year-old girls to use locker rooms and restrooms with biological males; and to set aside DOE's ultra vires legislative rule redefining 'sex' in Title IX to include gender identity," the 83-page complaint begins.
"This creates an intimidating and hostile environment for the girl members of Students and Parents for Privacy, some of whom are as young as 14, because Student A - who is biologically a male - actively uses their private facilities at the same times as plaintiffs," the complaint states. "As a direct result of defendants' policies and actions, every day these girls go to school, they experience embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation, and loss of dignity because they will have to use the locker room and restroom with a biological male."
The District 211 transgender student, who has not been identified publicly, initially filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights alleging that the district discriminated against [Student A] when it denied [him] access to the girls locker room. The district had previously allowed the student to use the girls restroom.
In an unprecedented decision, federal education authorities found that the district had violated Title IX. The district risked losing millions of federal dollars and a possible lawsuit by the federal government if it failed to reach a resolution. In a controversial decision, the district agreed in December to allow the student locker room access and installed privacy stalls. Proponents of the settlement heralded it as a civil rights victory.
The religious liberty group Thomas More Society also is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which seeks to keep the district from enforcing the locker room agreement and restroom policy and to bar the Department of Education from taking action against the district. The plaintiffs also argue in the suit that the locker room agreement prevents students from practicing the modesty that their faith requires of them.
The lawsuit, Students and Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education, seeks an injunction against District 211. Headquartered in Palatine, it serves nearly 12,500 students from Palatine, Hoffman Estates, Inverness, Schaumburg and parts of seven other northwest suburbs in five high schools and two alternative high schools.
It also asks the court to declare the policy and the district’s agreement with the Department of Education unconstitutional and illegal under both federal and Illinois law, and to have the court invalidate the department’s interpretation of Title IX’s sex discrimination provisions.
District 211 Supt. Dan Cates said Wednesday that the district affirms and supports the identity of all its students and will stand by the highly publicized agreement it reached last December with the department’s Office for Civil Rights. . . .
“We have implemented the agreement without any reports of incident or issue,” Cates said. “Our students have shown acceptance, support and respect of each other. Individual changing stalls in our locker rooms are readily available to every student and further accommodations that provide even greater privacy remain available upon request.”
The divisive and politically combustible issue of bathroom access for transgender individuals is about to become further inflamed, as the Obama administration is expected in coming weeks to aggressively reinforce its position that transgender student rights are fully protected under federal law, sources told POLITICO.
With the Justice Department already locking horns with North Carolina over the state’s so-called bathroom bill, the administration plans to reaffirm its view that robust protections for transgender students are within the existing scope of Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. Multiple agencies are expected to be involved.
New guidance on Title IX represents a natural outgrowth of the administration’s aggressive agenda on gender equity and civil rights. In April 2014, guidance issued by the Education Department on sexual violence explicitly mentioned that transgender students are protected under Title IX. LGBT advocates saw it as an important moment for the transgender community, but have wanted the administration to go even further in clarifying the law.
