South Carolina Superintendent Ellen Weaver also opposes the Biden administration's new LGBTQ-inclusive rules regarding the application of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a law that prohibits sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funds. He joined the list of state officials. .
The regulation, announced on April 19, states that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Among other things, that means schools that don't allow transgender and non-binary students to use pronouns or accommodations that correspond to their gender identity may be in violation of the law.
This interpretation of Title IX is “deeply concerning,” Republican Rep. Weaver wrote in a memo to South Carolina school districts last week, Charleston television station WCBD reported. He recommended districts ignore the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1.
“Currently, in the name of ‘equity,’ the U.S. Department of Education has extended its long-standing prohibition against discrimination on the basis of ‘sex,’ to ‘gender stereotypes, gender-related characteristics (including intersex characteristics), pregnancy, “We are expanding this to include things related to “conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity,'' she continued in the memo obtained by the department. “This is not fair. It's statutory.”
“By redefining the class of people that Title IX seeks to protect, the Biden administration’s rules seek to change the meaning and purpose of the underlying law, thereby impacting student and Reversing biologically based protections for women in athletics, restrooms, locker rooms, accommodations, and other single-sex spaces and activities; Enormous legal uncertainties and compliance costs. to school districts and creating confusion and confusion for teachers, students, and parents,” Weaver added.
She expects the rule to be challenged in court, and indeed it already is. “We fully expect this rule to be litigated for some time and eventually repealed or modified in whole or in part by a federal court,” she wrote. “It is possible, and even more likely, that a court will issue a restraining order. [the rule] before the effective date. ”
Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho filed a joint lawsuit against the rule on Monday. And Oklahoma's Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, who directed schools to ignore it, was roundly criticized at a State Board of Education meeting last Thursday.
Civil rights activists in South Carolina quickly condemned Weaver's actions. “Superintendent Weaver has once again put his political views above the children he is supposed to serve,” Jace Woodrum, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, said in a press release. “In addition to encouraging school districts to ignore federal regulations and putting underfunded schools at risk of losing vital funding, her letter also argues that transgender children do not exist and are protected from discrimination.” This rhetoric is another example of her callous approach to serving students.”
The memo comes at a time when South Carolina is considering additional anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. “Superintendent Weaver’s Department of Education is pursuing an overbroad book ban policy (Regulation R.43-170) that gives anti-LGBTQ+ groups the power to purge books from schools,” an ACLU press release said. . “At the same time, the state Legislature is considering a classroom censorship bill (H. 3728) that would limit teachers’ ability to discuss gender inequality in the classroom.”
Weaver's memo “parrots the same inflammatory anti-LGBTQ+ language used by political commentators,” Chase Glenn, executive director of the Full Acceptance Alliance, said in a statement to WCBD. . “It's time to remove this type of political speech from our schools. Superintendent Weaver may not personally support the rights of LGBTQ+ students, but as the state's top school leader, Unfortunately, our superintendent has a responsibility to ensure that all students have equal rights and protections and a safe place to learn and be themselves. It shows that they don’t have the best interests of all students in mind.”