Oh yes, parental rights when they wanna out the students, but not so much when the parents want to give their kids treatment. I love conservative logic.
THIS IS INCREDIBLE NEWS! I am a Trans alumni from Middletown High School South class of 2017 and have been advocating for students since. When I attended, I had to sign a contract when I went to prom with the same sex saying “I wouldn't show physical affection to protect me from bullying”. That was bullying in itself!
Good news, though I am concerned as always that a right-wing higher court could overturn this.
In general, local resistance and efforts- especially in blue states where they have political support - will be the key to lessening the effects of administration’s brutal moves against trans people.
The only higher court in NJ is the state Supreme Court, which I think may well not even take the case unless a different Appellate Court reaches a different result (and so there is a conflict to be resolved). Given that would require first another school in a different part of the state to adopt what should be called a "squealer" or "snitch" rule and then a suit against it to fail in that Appellate Court (which given the strength of these precedents I think is unlikely), the prospect of it being overturned in the foreseeable future seems low.
Which is nice for me 'cause ever since these snitch rules appeared in three, then four, NJ schools, I've been on the lookout for my local school board (in Ocean County) to do the same. One less thing to fret about. Now for the dozens of others....
Yes! And nobody in the Hanover Township Schools thought to call my parents in the early 70’s to let them know I was wearing girls’ clothes to school. . .
Good on NJ- not just for filing the case in the first place (rather than waiting for the victims of the otherwise-inevitable civil rights violations to do it), but also for not dropping it to comply in advance when Cheetolini oozed his way back into the White House.
Take care, Erin. So happy to see fine reporting continue. No one person can do what you have been doing. Our gratitude is boundless. And you are too valuable to lose in any way!!!!!
So, the title says that teachers can't out students, but I'm having trouble following the wording of the actual rulings. Can someone confirm if the ruling explicitly forbids teachers from outing students, or just forbids mandatory outing policies?
I'm ill right now, but I updated the title to specify "forced outing policies" to be more in line with what the article itself says while I investigate.
Okay. Reading the two decisions quickly, what happened is that the NJ AttGen got preliminary injunctions barring the four schools from enforcing newly-adopted forced outing - what I call snitch - rules while the issue of those rules is litigated before the state Division on Civil Rights.
The schools appealed, claiming the lower courts abused their discretion in issuing the injunctions.
The Appellate Courts upheld the injunctions, finding no abuse of discretion.
So this is not a final decision. It says the rules can't be enforced while the issue is being litigated. It also means, however, that the Appellate Courts found it likely that the suits against the rules will succeed on the merits, which is what justified the injunctions.
On the other point, the original versions of the policy in all four schools (that is, before the recent changes) said "There is no affirmative duty for any school district staff member to notify a student's parent of the student's gender identity or expression." So no, there is no rule that a parent/guardian can't be told, only that there is, at least for now, no requirement they have to be. However, if they were told without the student's knowledge and permission, that could well run afoul of issues of privacy.
Oh yes, parental rights when they wanna out the students, but not so much when the parents want to give their kids treatment. I love conservative logic.
THIS IS INCREDIBLE NEWS! I am a Trans alumni from Middletown High School South class of 2017 and have been advocating for students since. When I attended, I had to sign a contract when I went to prom with the same sex saying “I wouldn't show physical affection to protect me from bullying”. That was bullying in itself!
Fantastic! Thanks for bringing this to us, Mira!
Good news, though I am concerned as always that a right-wing higher court could overturn this.
In general, local resistance and efforts- especially in blue states where they have political support - will be the key to lessening the effects of administration’s brutal moves against trans people.
Thank you for the reporting Mira!
The only higher court in NJ is the state Supreme Court, which I think may well not even take the case unless a different Appellate Court reaches a different result (and so there is a conflict to be resolved). Given that would require first another school in a different part of the state to adopt what should be called a "squealer" or "snitch" rule and then a suit against it to fail in that Appellate Court (which given the strength of these precedents I think is unlikely), the prospect of it being overturned in the foreseeable future seems low.
Which is nice for me 'cause ever since these snitch rules appeared in three, then four, NJ schools, I've been on the lookout for my local school board (in Ocean County) to do the same. One less thing to fret about. Now for the dozens of others....
good news. finally
Yay!! 🥳🏳️⚧️🎊👏👏
🎉🏳️⚧️🎉
Yes! And nobody in the Hanover Township Schools thought to call my parents in the early 70’s to let them know I was wearing girls’ clothes to school. . .
Good on NJ- not just for filing the case in the first place (rather than waiting for the victims of the otherwise-inevitable civil rights violations to do it), but also for not dropping it to comply in advance when Cheetolini oozed his way back into the White House.
Again, some good news! Thank you for all your hard work to keep us informed!
Finally some sanity
Best news in months! We have to protect the children. Feel better Erin.
Hooray for the trans community!
Take care, Erin. So happy to see fine reporting continue. No one person can do what you have been doing. Our gratitude is boundless. And you are too valuable to lose in any way!!!!!
Get well soon, Erin.
So, the title says that teachers can't out students, but I'm having trouble following the wording of the actual rulings. Can someone confirm if the ruling explicitly forbids teachers from outing students, or just forbids mandatory outing policies?
I'm ill right now, but I updated the title to specify "forced outing policies" to be more in line with what the article itself says while I investigate.
Thanks, Erin! There's no rush, I hope you feel better soon ^_^
Okay. Reading the two decisions quickly, what happened is that the NJ AttGen got preliminary injunctions barring the four schools from enforcing newly-adopted forced outing - what I call snitch - rules while the issue of those rules is litigated before the state Division on Civil Rights.
The schools appealed, claiming the lower courts abused their discretion in issuing the injunctions.
The Appellate Courts upheld the injunctions, finding no abuse of discretion.
So this is not a final decision. It says the rules can't be enforced while the issue is being litigated. It also means, however, that the Appellate Courts found it likely that the suits against the rules will succeed on the merits, which is what justified the injunctions.
On the other point, the original versions of the policy in all four schools (that is, before the recent changes) said "There is no affirmative duty for any school district staff member to notify a student's parent of the student's gender identity or expression." So no, there is no rule that a parent/guardian can't be told, only that there is, at least for now, no requirement they have to be. However, if they were told without the student's knowledge and permission, that could well run afoul of issues of privacy.
Hope that helps.