By Sam Frescoe,
Veteran’s Recall
http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/
On 3 Dec 2015, the progressive narrative
won another prize without having to fire a shot, metaphorically or otherwise. On
this day, two narratives were set to have a pitched battle. On one side of the
field was the progressive narrative as represented by the federal government. On
the other side were the citizens of Illinois School District 211 as represented
by the School Board.
The government fired first by
claiming that a transgender student was protected under Title IX. The primary
argument was that the term “sex” included transgender people. If the district
disagreed, then a violation would be declared, federal funding to the district
would stop, and the further actions would continue.
The district returned fire by
claiming that after complying with the direction, intent, wishes, desires,
wants, longings, requests, appeals, and demands of the student, other students,
parents, and federal inspectors over the course of two years, reasonable
accommodations were already in place and acceptable.
As the battle continued to wage
the public did get a chance to fire a shot or two. There were some that
supported the transgender person. There were some that wanted the board to
stand against the government. There were others that were afraid to speak for
being labeled “intolerant.” After all volleys were exchanged, the board voted.
The result of that vote was a
5-2 decision to succumb to the government. The government immediately declared
victory by reminding everyone that discrimination in any form was wrong.
What a victory! The whole thing
concluded with a settlement that would require the district (students, parents,
faculty, staff, contractors, and administrators) to treat one person
differently than everyone else while being watched by government tattle-tales.
What a precedent! Now, through a
non-legislative action that never saw a court, an un-emancipated and
biologically male teenager can use the force of government to coerce the
compliance of an entire school district because he feels like cross-dressing
according to his “she” thoughts.
That’s right! Because one boy has
“girly feelings” the entire school district of 12,000 students and 24,000
parents (plus teachers, faculty, staff, contractors, and administrators) must
submit or “man up” and quit. Surprised?
Some Background
The battleground that brought
about this textbook example of federal government over-reach began in the
2000’s.
In 2008, a Federal District Court judge concluded that a
federal employer was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In this
case, the complainant was a transgender person, and the term “sex” was
reinterpreted to include being transgender. [i]
In 2010, the Obama administration issued guidance for
addressing the needs of transgender people through the Office of Personnel
Management. [ii]
In 2012, under the Obama administration, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which
made it illegal to discriminate based on sex, also protected transgender
employees. [iii]
In 2014, under the Obama administration, the Department of
Health and Human Services directed Medicare coverage of sex reassignment
surgery. [iv]
In 2015, under the Obama administration, the Pentagon lifted
a ban on military service by transgender people. [v]
So, by a brilliant act of
organized tyranny, using court fiat and executive decree, the legislative
process was completely bypassed. (Please reference the Constitution Art-1,
Sec-1, and Art-2, para-7, and Art-3, and the 10th Amendment.)
To those that sworn to protect the Constitution, did you read
the Constitution before you shredded it?
To the electorate in general, pull your head out of your ass!
You just handed the decision to those who pay no price for being wrong.
To the district, thanks for screwing everyone over! Look
who’s in charge now?
Equal opportunity lay to waste
on the altar of equal outcomes. Way to go everyone!
The Complaint
The Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) found that the Township High School Board District
211 of Palatine, IL violated Title IX for excluding Student-A from
participation in and denying her the benefits of its education program,
providing services to her in a different manner, subjecting her to different
rules of behavior, and subjecting her to different treatment on the basis of
sex. [vi]
“The evidence shows that as a result of the District’s denial
of access to the girls locker rooms, Student A has not only received an unequal
opportunity to benefit from the District’s educational program, but also has
experienced an ongoing sense of isolation and ostracism throughout her high
school enrollment.” [vii]
The OCR found that the alternatives “continued or would
continue to exclude Student-A from the girls’ locker rooms and set her apart
from her female classmates and teammates,” particularly as some of the proposed
alternative facilities were not comparable to those provided for other girls. [viii]
Finally, as a result of being denied access to the girls
Athletics locker room, the Student felt excluded from the team because she
missed the informal huddle in the locker room before matches, locker room “girl
talk,” and the female bonding in the locker room. [ix]
Accordingly, the OCR concluded the District denied the
Student’s Title IX rights. [x]
The OCR did acknowledge the
following.
The District has honored Student A’s request to be treated as
female in all respects except her request to be provided access to the girls’
locker rooms at the School.
The Response
School officials had previously
worked out a plan under which the student could use a separate locker room and
shower facility so girls using the primary girls’ locker room and shower would
not feel uncomfortable.
[xi]
With respect to the girls’ locker
rooms, the District publicly stated that students should be able to use the
locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, and Student A has stated
her intention to use the private locker room areas when changing her clothes.[xii]
Other than access to the female locker rooms, the District treated the Student
consistently with her gender identity. [xiii]
[xiv]
Superintendent Daniel Cates said
the district "categorically refutes the notion of any violation of the law
or form of discrimination." [xv]
The Public Discussion
There were those supportive of
Student A.
“What if this were your child?” Teresa Saunders asked. “I
can’t imagine anything more damaging for a student than to be told they are
different from all their fellow students.” “In doing so, the administration is
treating them as though they weren’t human beings at all.” [xvi] Saunders
is a local parent that supports the teen. [xvii]
"Discrimination of any form is wrong," said one
district mother. [xviii]
There were those supportive of
common sense.
Jeff Miller, a parent of a daughter in the district, “People
have the right in this country to live their lives the way they see fit, and I
respect that. When it starts infringing on other people's rights, that's when
it becomes a problem." [xix]
He stated that his daughter was scared and uncomfortable when she
learned a transgender student could gain access to the girls' locker room. [xx]
"The difference is in how we define
gender," Miller said. "I define it by based on biology, and the other
side defines it based on gender identity, which is essentially nothing but a
belief." [xxi] "This is not a civil rights issue." [xxii]
One high school senior cited her personal modesty and
religious beliefs in not wanting the transgender student to be allowed in the
locker room. [xxiii]
She did not want her name used
and did not speak in the public comment portion of the meeting in part because
she was "absolutely terrified of what other people would think of me, if
they would call me intolerant." [xxiv]
District parent Jennifer Soloway – "How do we teach our
kids that sexting is wrong and nudity is wrong and pornography is wrong, yet
it's OK to see the opposite sex in your locker room if they feel this
way?" she asked. "They still have the anatomy of the opposite sex. If
they didn't have the anatomy, it would be different." [xxv]
The Decision
The District faced a decision to
accept or decline the OCR settlement. If the settlement was declined, then
federal funding under Title IX would be at risk of being withheld from the
District. If the settlement was accepted, then the District would be required
to allow a male student who dresses like a girl, takes drugs/hormones, and
identifies as female to use the girls’ locker room and shower facilities and
other requirements.[xxvi]
On 3 Dec 2015, the Township High
School Board District 211 of Palatine, IL voted (5-2) in favor of accepting the
settlement. [xxvii]
[xxviii]
[xxix]
In a statement released after
the vote, Superintendent Daniel Cates said the settlement applies only to the
student in question and is not a district-wide policy. [xxx]
In My Opinion
To all parties and interests…SHE IS NOT A GIRL!
First, and foremost, if the
federal government had done their job according to their oath of office, then
this coercive, ridiculous, absurd, and profane (C.R.A.P.) display would have
been addressed in full by the People where they lived.
Second, the District School
Board got it wrong. It was time to stand against the government in open court. To
the honorable two, you got it right. To the dishonorable five, you are a
disgrace. The amount of money you chose to protect cannot redeem your decision.
(FYI: The government can deny funding whenever and however it wants.)
To Student-A…
Why is it wrong for others to expect you to behave as a boy
due the fact that you are a biological male?
Why is it right for others to accept your behavior as a girl
in light of the fact that you are a biological male?
I believe that you hold an opinion as to how you are to be
treated by others, and that you should be allowed to act on that opinion. I agree
with both of these points. In fact, I would not condone the use of force
against you for having that opinion, nor for acting on that opinion. Do you accord to me and others the same
respect and consideration as I have just accorded to you? – Obviously, the
answer is NO. – Your actions are morally reprehensible in every way.
Why do you believe your feelings warrant the use of violence
by the State to silence others?
Make no mistake; you are, at least in part, responsible for
what has happened.
To the district…
What you did when Student-A showed up, and after the OCR
arrived, was monumentally stupid. In your failure to recognize the “why” of the
situation, you set (and reset) a precedent that you could not satisfy. The law
is qualified by sex without qualifiers for feelings, “girly” thoughts, gender,
identity, cross-dressing, or anything else.
You failed to treat all males as males. You failed to treat
all females as females. As a result, every male and female, currently enrolled,
and all of those to come, must submit to the settlement to appease one fragile
boy.
You failed to address the problem of unwarranted, and
blatantly disrespectful, behavior that other students directed towards
Student-A, and vice-versa. Student-A has an inherent and Constitutional right
to hold his opinion, and to act on that opinion, so long as the identical
rights of others are not violated. So does every other student. You failed to
protect those rights by reducing and eliminating bad behavior.
Make no mistake; you are, at least in part, responsible for
what has happened.
To the OCR…
Student-A fully accepted the existing conditions. [xxxi] You presented nothing to suggest that
Student-A was forced to accept those conditions in any way. So, why create a
social problem to satisfy a political whim over a problem that no longer
existed?
Do you really want me to believe that it all came down to a
set of shower curtains? This was never about sexual discrimination. This was
always about social-political power. That’s why you harassed the district for
two years. That’s why you threaten the district with critical funding. That’s
why you supported an ACLU payday. This is why you built your entire case around
feelings passed off as facts.
Do you really want me to believe that qualified to determine
if anyone’s feelings are factual or otherwise?
Do you really want me to believe that there is a legal test
for measuring the merit of feelings?
Do you really want me to believe that you know better than
the parents paying the bill how to raise, instruct, and protect their children
from harm?
Do you really want me to believe that withholding the name of
Student-A is congruent with the principle of due process?
Do you really want me to believe that forcing others to
address one student differently than the other 12,000 students is NOT
discriminatory?
Do you really want me to believe that the feelings of
Student-A have greater standing than the civil rights of every student that
objected as a matter of religious belief?
Do you really want me to believe that the use of the
government’s monopoly of force was required to address this matter?
Do you really want me to believe that changing the definition
of “sex” (an action NOT AUTHORIZED by law) is within your legal authority?
Make no mistake; you are, at least in part, responsible for
what has happened.
To the ACLU…[xxxii]
The idea that showering in a place where there are no girls
is stigmatizing and “blatant discrimination” to a biological male is stupid
beyond compare. Student-A stigmatized himself…intentionally…in public…for
years…knowing that the reaction could be negative…without consideration of others,
then forced his feelings upon everyone else against their will and consent. By
the way, Student-A agreed to the separate arrangement.
Student-A was never denied an education, a place on the team,
a seat in class, or a meal at lunch.
Student-A was never denied housing, employment, government
services, or government benefits.
Student-A did not experience actual violence of any kind, nor
was made to survive an act of violence, nor was subject to a cycle of violence.
[State v. Wells. 31 Conn. 210. [xxxiii]]
Student-A did not experience political violence[xxxiv],
workplace violence[xxxv],
or armed harassment. [xxxvi]
Student-A did not experience physical force.
Student-A did not experience an erroneous generalization. It
is a fact that a male acting like a female with the assistance of man-made
chemicals is NOT normal.
Student-A did not experience sexual harassment. The presence
of harassing comments does not equate to unwelcome or unwanted advances of a
sexual style or manner. [xxxvii] Meaning, There is nothing in your claim that
suggests anybody came onto Student-A in order to get him/her/it into bed.
Finally, your actions furthered the belief held by at least
one actual female that the school environment was opening hostile to her
different opinion. In fact, this female expressed fear of actual violence
against her person if she spoke. In turn, she chose to be silent. Point of
fact, this situation is the exact case your organization claims to seek to
reduce.[xxxviii]
Make no mistake; you are, at least in part, responsible for
what has happened.
To the parents…
The statement made by Saunders is profoundly uninformed.
First, it’s not your child, nor are you qualified to testify on behalf of the
parent. Second, Student-A willfully made himself radically different from any
other student in the district. Third, the entire two year ordeal of positive
action was done precisely because the students are human beings.
As to discrimination being wrong, I agree. Treating Student-A
as a female when in fact Student-A is a male is highly discriminatory.
To Miller, people do not have the right to live their lives
any way that they see fit. Everyone is expected to abide by the laws of the
land, not their whims. Second, the case was never about sex (biology) or gender
(belief). The case was always about social engineering through political
activism. However, I do agree that this is not a civil rights issue as defined
by the letter of the law. Finally, I respect your initiative and effort to
protect your daughter and assuage her fears. I sincerely hope that you are
successful.
The statement made by Soloway is right in all regards.
This whole thing is a
miscarriage of justice for the sake of doing what feels good, in the name of
doing what is good, in order to set a cultural precondition aimed at
solidifying federal power at the expense of personal freedom.
Going Forward
Is the federal government
insufferable yet? Does America need a Department of Education for its
future generations? In my opinion, it’s time for the answers to be “yes” and
“no,” to abolish the Department of Education, to clarify Title IX, and return
the responsibility of instructing future generations to the People where they
live.
Your View
I invite you to tell me what you
believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am
looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American
discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
No comments:
Post a Comment