When Aretha Franklin sang “R-E-S-P-E-C-T find out what it means to me,” it seemed obvious what she wanted when her baby came home.
But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is less sure.
Republicans who run the Iowa Legislature gutted much of Linn-Mar’s gender support policy for transgender students with the passage of Senate File 496. Republican assailed the policy. Mike Pence can’t quit talking about it. But last week, the appeals court used its gavel to smash one section of the policy that remained intact.
The court ruled that a section of the policy requiring staff and students “to respect a student’s gender identity,” or face potential punishment was an overly vague restriction of free speech. Linn-Mar argued the phrasing was meant to discourage staff and students from refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns and name. But the court didn’t buy it.
Instead, they sided with parents of kids who don’t think being transgender is real and that people can’t transition to from one gender to another. The parents feared their kids could be disciplined for airing those views.
“The lack of clarity also makes the policy susceptible to arbitrary enforcement,” wrote Judge Steve Colloton in the majority opinion. “The undefined term “respect” leaves the policy open to unpredictable interpretations and creates a substantial risk that school administrators may arbitrarily enforce the policy.”
So, if you need to find out what respect means to you, don’t ask these judges.
Colloton, a former Iowa prosecutor, was on a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees in 2017 when Donald Trump filled Antonin Scalia’s empty seat.
I’m a First Amendment guy. Who could ever forget its opening words: “Congress shall make no law respecting …” Uh oh.
Newsletter Signup
Delivered to your inbox daily
Seriously, I believe any law or policy restricting speech should be narrowly tailored. I also think the definition of “respect” is crystal clear. But the court found otherwise.
So, I disagree, but respect its opinion, whatever that means.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Jane Kelly agreed that “respect” with no definition is problematic. But she also addressed two elephants in the room. State and federal law prohibit discrimination against transgender students. Those laws remain standing. Kelley pointed to Title IX and Iowa’s civil right code, which has prohibited discrimination based on gender identity since 2007.
“I write separately because the gravamen of this case is not the regulation of speech that is merely disagreeable or offensive to some listener. What is before the court are Linn-Mar Community School District’s efforts to abide by the requirements imposed on it by federal and state law.
“In sum, Linn-Mar Community School District has a duty, under federal and state law, to protect students from harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex,” Kelly wrote.
“Under federal law this duty extends to protecting students from harassment or discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Iowa law explicitly imposes a duty to protect students from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The district also has a duty, under Iowa law, to protect students from bullying, and this duty extends to protecting students from harassment and bullying on the basis of gender identity,” Kelley wrote.
Kelly, a former Cedar Rapids public defender, was on a shortlist to be Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee to fill Scalia’s seat in 2016.
So, maybe, if Linn-Mar comes up with some tighter language, it can meet its educational mission and legal obligations. Gov. Kim Reynolds and Moms for Liberty are talking a victory lap after the ruling, but the race is far from finished.
November’s school board election will have high stakes. Let’s not elect a chain of fools.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
www.thegazette.com
But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is less sure.
Republicans who run the Iowa Legislature gutted much of Linn-Mar’s gender support policy for transgender students with the passage of Senate File 496. Republican assailed the policy. Mike Pence can’t quit talking about it. But last week, the appeals court used its gavel to smash one section of the policy that remained intact.
The court ruled that a section of the policy requiring staff and students “to respect a student’s gender identity,” or face potential punishment was an overly vague restriction of free speech. Linn-Mar argued the phrasing was meant to discourage staff and students from refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns and name. But the court didn’t buy it.
Instead, they sided with parents of kids who don’t think being transgender is real and that people can’t transition to from one gender to another. The parents feared their kids could be disciplined for airing those views.
“The lack of clarity also makes the policy susceptible to arbitrary enforcement,” wrote Judge Steve Colloton in the majority opinion. “The undefined term “respect” leaves the policy open to unpredictable interpretations and creates a substantial risk that school administrators may arbitrarily enforce the policy.”
So, if you need to find out what respect means to you, don’t ask these judges.
Colloton, a former Iowa prosecutor, was on a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees in 2017 when Donald Trump filled Antonin Scalia’s empty seat.
I’m a First Amendment guy. Who could ever forget its opening words: “Congress shall make no law respecting …” Uh oh.
Opinion Newsletter Signup
Newsletter Signup
Seriously, I believe any law or policy restricting speech should be narrowly tailored. I also think the definition of “respect” is crystal clear. But the court found otherwise.
So, I disagree, but respect its opinion, whatever that means.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Jane Kelly agreed that “respect” with no definition is problematic. But she also addressed two elephants in the room. State and federal law prohibit discrimination against transgender students. Those laws remain standing. Kelley pointed to Title IX and Iowa’s civil right code, which has prohibited discrimination based on gender identity since 2007.
“I write separately because the gravamen of this case is not the regulation of speech that is merely disagreeable or offensive to some listener. What is before the court are Linn-Mar Community School District’s efforts to abide by the requirements imposed on it by federal and state law.
“In sum, Linn-Mar Community School District has a duty, under federal and state law, to protect students from harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex,” Kelly wrote.
“Under federal law this duty extends to protecting students from harassment or discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Iowa law explicitly imposes a duty to protect students from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The district also has a duty, under Iowa law, to protect students from bullying, and this duty extends to protecting students from harassment and bullying on the basis of gender identity,” Kelley wrote.
Kelly, a former Cedar Rapids public defender, was on a shortlist to be Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee to fill Scalia’s seat in 2016.
So, maybe, if Linn-Mar comes up with some tighter language, it can meet its educational mission and legal obligations. Gov. Kim Reynolds and Moms for Liberty are talking a victory lap after the ruling, but the race is far from finished.
November’s school board election will have high stakes. Let’s not elect a chain of fools.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
Linn-Mar lost in court, but laws against discrimination haven’t changed
Protestors stand at the intersection of 10th Street and 29th Avenue during a protest against the Linn-Mar school board’s passage …
www.thegazette.com
