School Board members concerned rescinding policy toward transgender students will have negative impact

Jun. 19—GRAND FORKS — Following a decision to rescind a policy providing accommodations to transgender and gender nonconforming students, some members of the Grand Forks Public School Board are concerned about the impact the decision will have.

The board voted 5-4 at its regular meeting on Monday to rescind the policy, in light of the passage of a new state law.

House Bill 1522 — signed by Gov. Doug Burgum in May — states that public schools and their employees may not "withhold or conceal information about a student's transgender status from the student's parent or legal guardian." Additionally, the law has a provision prohibiting schools from adopting a policy that mandates employees use a student's preferred pronouns.

Vice President Amber Flynn, who voted against rescinding the policy, said it was conceived in collaboration with the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (DPI), and the North Dakota School Boards Association (NDSBA), to further suicide prevention efforts for students identifying as transgender or gender nonconforming.

Flynn said she is concerned that rescinding the policy may create a less inclusive environment.

"What some people might think is a small effort to call someone by their preferred pronoun, could really help someone feel like they have a better sense of belonging in the world and at school," she said. "I felt that by rescinding the policy that had been developed in collaboration with those entities, and that the board had approved, we would be making a decision that wasn't in the best interest of students."

Flynn also said she is concerned about the bill's provision requiring school employees to disclose a student's gender identity to their parent or legal guardian. She said for some students, teachers may be the only adults they feel comfortable confiding in.

"I think there are adults in every kid's life that they have a different level of relationship with," she said. "With those different levels of relationship come different levels of trust. Unfortunately, sometimes individuals who identify as LGBTQ don't have a trusting relationship with their own parents or guardians. By rescinding the policy and having to disclose to parents, it takes away another support system that could have existed for the student."

Flynn, who previously worked with Title IX compliance initiatives, also said she believes the new law is in conflict with anti-discrimination statutes codified within Title IX.

"My understanding is that Title IX covers sexual orientation, and I think there are protections there that go against what our state law says," she said. "At some point, it's probably going to go to a lawsuit. My vote was reflective of 'in the meantime, we should try to protect the kids.'"

Board member Monte Gaukler, who voted against rescinding the policy, said experiences during her 33 years as a teacher in the district factored into her decision.

"I've had some very private, personal conversations with my students as an educator, and feel honored that they confided in me," she said. "I just couldn't find it in my heart to vote to rescind this policy."

Superintendent Terry Brenner said although he understands why four board members voted against rescinding the policy, it is important to comply with the law as long as it is on the books.

"Law has been enacted, and as superintendent, I want to follow the law," he said. "I'm respectful of the board's collective decision for and against, and they all had good reasons to vote the way they did. There's a feeling that this may be overturned at the federal level, but until that happens, I'm certainly going to be respectful of following the democratic process."

Board member Bill Palmiscno, who voted to rescind the policy, echoed Brenner's sentiments that the district must follow the law.

"Under this law, we will do our best to help students within our school system," he said. "I think the district will make adjustments for the kids that need them, as the law states it can do."

Palmiscno also said he is frustrated the DPI did not provide any recommendations to the district on how to proceed under the new law.

"My disappointment is that nothing came from the Department of Public Instruction to help us move forward," he said. "They just asked all school districts to talk to their own attorneys, when in reality, they could have multiple opinions. That's where I think they dropped the ball."