The Department of Education is Out of Line

Read these first:

little rock nineI don’t believe the ACLU actually cares about the ethics of this case, they were paid big money to win with a potential windfall of new cases and big money from other wealthy, activist parents.

But the so-called Department of Education ought to be ashamed of itself. It outright threatened the ability of school district 211, which covers five high schools near Chicago, Illinois, to provide an education for its students and that’s the bottom line. The DOE extorted, and I do mean extorted, their desired result from this district in an unprecedented move.

“OCR’s [Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights] mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence” Source

Let’s pretend the DOE had only focused on the high school in question, rather than the whole district, and let’s further pretend that the DOE was looking out for the welfare of 50 students, in a population of 300. The bottom line is the DOE still threatened the education of every student, and the employment of every teacher there.

What does it mean when the United States Department of Education cares more about where one (or fifty, or even one thousand) teen changes clothing a few times a week, rather than whether those students and hundreds more have access to quality education?

This was not a case of a student being discriminated against or denied the right to an education based on skin color or sexual preference (see photos for examples of actual discrimination and prevention of the right to an equal education). This was a case about where and how a student should change clothes at school, although the student in question had already been assigned a private bathroom for changing. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is completely out of line.

Contact them here to share your thoughts with them.

*If you liked this post, please consider subscribing to my blog for just $1.50/month.

racist boySide Note: It is a potentially interesting tidbit that the lady in charge of the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights, worked for 10 years at the ACLU in Southern California.

Published by Loura Shares A Story

Loura Lawrence is a tireless, creative entrepreneur specializing in media, communications, and the arts. She holds a Liberal Arts degree in English with a background in photojournalism, and is passionate about education, public policy reform, and women's issues.

4 thoughts on “The Department of Education is Out of Line

  1. I’ll say this: if it is a question of “gender” and not “sex,” then the Department of Education has no legal obligation (indeed, nor do they have moral right) to allow a male in the female locker room. It’s not discrimination, it’s segregation of the sexes for the age of minority. There is no real dispute for this, and in such a case, this ruling is downright stupid.

    That said, if this minor has been physically altered to become female in terms of “sex,” then the moral implications of transgender people is immaterial. If the person is now female in terms of sex, the only place for her is the female locker room. If we disagree with transgender operations and the act of becoming a different sex, it has no bearing on the legal requirements under civil rights as applied today. I don’t think it is morally right to undergo any transgender initiatives myself. You are what you are. But if the deed is done, and it’s not strictly “gender,” there can only be one legal judgment here. It just speaks to the moral depths we are sinking to, that’s all.


    1. I am of a same mind as you. The ACLU was trying to argue that distinguishing “gender” (instead of “sex”) for a transgender person, was unscientific and immoral. You make a very good point about this also being a matter of age of minority. I am not sure, but there were suggestions throughout the articles, that the teen in question has not undergone any physical alteration.

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts!


      1. If there is no physical difference before versus after, then I don’t think they can justify this. It’s too easy for perverts to have all the watching they want if the school doesn’t essentially invade the whole family’s privacy to be positive it is a gender issue in fact, rather than a lie to satisfy rather vulgar imperatives.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: