LATEST ON THE PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 21st

school.pngHere is an update to IMPORTANT SCHOOL BOARD UPDATES FOR SEPTEMBER 21st MEETING. It is another email from the Chairman of the PWC Republican Committee.

Prince William Republicans,

As you know, on September 21, the School Board is voting on a Revision of Policy 060, “Nondiscrimination And Commitment To Equity,” a proposal being pushed by liberal Chairman Ryan Sawyers. Sawyers wants to add “gender identity” to the non-discrimination clause, which would allow transgender students and staff to choose the bathroom, locker room, showers and athletic team participation of their preferred choice, regardless of biological anatomy.

In response to the overwhelming backlash from the community, Chairman Sawyers signaled on Saturday that he would amend his proposal and provide a “compromise.” This so-called “compromise” would still include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” in the non-discrimination policy but give “guidance to the Superintendent that he is to not change the current regulations and practices regarding bathroom and locker room use.” Sawyers’ new proposal continues, “The Prince William County School Board may specifically address this at a later date once it, as a body, is satisfied with the guidance and/or rulings provided by the courts, or as required by law.”

Here is a news story about Sawyer’s “compromise” policy revision: http://www.fauquier.com/prince_william_times/sawyers-amends-school-lbgt-proposal-to-exclude-bathroom-policy-change/article_e9301714-7daa-11e6-8ae5-f77c35442b60.html

While we are pleased that Sawyers has acknowledged that Prince William County residents are overwhelmingly against this radical policy, there are legitimate legal problems with Sawyer’s “compromise” proposal. In addition, the Brentsville District won’t have a Representative in place for Wednesday’s vote. Therefore, the School Board should still oppose Sawyers’ proposal on Wednesday.

Below are a few important points to consider as we approach this crucial Wednesday School Board meeting:

1) NO BRENTSVILLE, NO VOTE! – This “gender identity” policy revision is significant and has far reaching implications, even with Sawyers’ compromise. A temporary replacement for Gil Trenum (the Brentsville Representative who is currently on a year-long Navy Reserve deployment) has not been appointed yet. Therefore, Chairman Sawyers should delay any major vote until a representative for Brentsville is seated.

2) Sawyer’s Compromise Is Still Bad Policy – Chairman Sawyers’ “compromise” is meaningless and actually contradicts itself. The whole purpose of adding “gender identity” to a non-discrimination policy is for access to gender-specific facilities. All guidance documentation for transgender rights affirms this (ie: Schools In Transition: A Guide To Support Transgender Students in K-12). Sawyers’ “compromise” would give implicit approval to lawsuits by transgender persons against the School Superintendent. It is a backdoor approach that eventually will lead to transgender access to bathrooms and locker rooms through lawsuit, which would violate the privacy rights of our children through uncomfortable encounters among children and adults of the opposite biological anatomy.

In addition, this “compromise” fails to address the concerns of the community regarding overnight accommodations on student trips. This “compromise” also fails to address parents’ concerns about the sex education curriculum changes to incorporate transgenderism which typically follow such policy changes.

3) This Policy Revision Is Still Unnecessary – For years, Prince William County Public Schools (PWCS) have protected and accommodated transgender students and staff in a respectful, private and genuine manner, therefore no revision is needed. PWCS have conducted numerous forums and outreach events regarding discrimination and school bullying, and the issue of discrimination toward transgender students and staff has never been a problem. In fact, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Del. Bob Marshall, PWCS acknowledged that no such discrimination cases have been filed in the last ten years. Our schools have kept transgender students safe, and our teachers have disciplined bullying when it occurs. Therefore, no policy revision is needed. This is a solution in search of a problem.

4) This Policy Creates Legal Problems for County – In August, a federal judge in Texas blocked President Obama’s guidance directive on transgender bathrooms. Also in August, the U.S. Supreme Court halted a lawsuit by a transgender student in Gloucester County, Virginia, effectively ruling that the County did not have to open up its bathrooms, locker rooms and showers to opposite gender students. And last week, the Virginia Supreme Court decided to take up a challenge to the Fairfax County’s “gender identity” policy change, based on the “Dillon Rule”, which requires that local nondiscrimination laws not be more stringent than the state law. Plain and simple – a County school board cannot pass laws that conflict with state law! Revising this policy now in Prince William would open up the County to lawsuits that drain precious resources, while the constitutionality of this policy is debated in the courts. Multiple courts have ruled against these policy changes across the nation. Many legal experts believe this issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court. Even with Sawyers’ “compromise” proposal, the School Board should not take any action on this matter at this time.

CALL-TO-ACTION:

1) Email the School Board requesting that they vote “NO” on the Revision of Policy 060, “Nondiscrimination And Commitment To Equity” and Chairman Sawyer’s “compromise” proposal. Their email addresses are as follows:

Ryan Sawyers (D-At Large): RSawyers@pwcs.edu; Diane Raulston (D-Neabsco): DRaulston@pwcs.edu; Justin Wilk (D-Potomac): JWilk@pwcs.edu; Willie Deutsch (R-Coles): WDeutsch@pwcs.edu; Gil Trenum (R-Brentsville): GTrenum@pwcs.edu; Alyson Satterwhite (R-Gainesville): ASatterwhite@pwcs.edu; Lillie Jessie (D-Occoquan): LJessie@pwcs.edu; Loree Williams (D-Woodbridge): LWilliams@pwcs.edu

2) Sign up to speak against the revision during the September 21 (7pm) meeting “citizen time” at the Edward L. Kelly Leadership Center (14715 Bristow Rd, Manassas, VA 20112). To speak, notify the Board Clerk by phone at 703.791.8709; or by email at pwcsclerk@pwcs.edu prior to noon on the day of the Board meeting and you will be placed on the list of speakers. First come, first serve.

3) Notify your neighbors and community and encourage them to do item #1 and #2. The vast majority of Prince William County residents simply are unaware that this vote is taking place.

Warm Regards,

Dottie Miller
Chairman PWC Republican Committee

Think about what the proponents of adding “gender identity” to the non-discrimination clause are demanding. They are demanding that everybody else participate in their fantasy. By what right can anyone demand that everybody else treat them as a woman when they have the body of a man? By what right can anyone demand that everybody else treat them as a man when they have the body of a woman? They may as well demand that because they want to get drunk everyone else has to get drunk.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “LATEST ON THE PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 21st

  1. Tom, believe me when I say this… if I had kids school age, I would avoid public schools like the plague as far as I’m able to. And if I weren’t able, I’d work extra jobs and hours to make sure I could be able to.
    I’m for school choice, with or without government vouchers. It’s a parents responsibility to make sure their kids are prepared for life and success. Public schools are irredeemable in my opinion

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Stephen

    “Think about what the proponents of adding “gender identity” to the non-discrimination clause are demanding. They are demanding that everybody else participate in their fantasy.” So instead of them imposing their values on you, you want to impose your values on them?

    Like

    1. Don’t you know how to do a reality check?

      Admittedly, the “transgendered community has modest ambitions. They just want everyone to participate in their pretense they were born with the wrong genitals. Less modest souls think they are Napoleon, the Pope, George Washington, and even Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the principle is the same. If we don’t have to pretend to believe someone when they pretend to be someone they are not, then we don’t have to pretend to believe someone when they claim they we born with the wrong genitals.

      Like

      1. Stephen

        Again, the only thing, according to Classical Liberalism, that makes you right is you and what you value. You say they are insane to a degree. They say they are not. Who is right and why? Did you not say that everyone could define happiness for themselves? Is this not happiness to them? Are you, therefore, allowed to trample on their happiness?

        Liberalism does not address the question of conflicting rights since it’s epistemology on the subject is entirely anthropocentric i.e. the Natural law is determined by man alone and anything else is tutelage.

        Like

        1. @Stephen

          I am not claiming any right except the right not to have the results of another person’s choices forced upon me. What you are claiming is the right to force your beliefs upon others.

          Do you support freedom of religion including the free exercise of religion? If you do, then define it and explain how you would protect it. If not, we have nothing to debate.

          We have effectively tried what you advocate, and the effect of those good intentions have been one disaster after another piled upon each other.
          https://citizentom.com/2016/09/22/frederic-bastiat-on-the-difference-between-a-good-and-a-bad-economist/

          Like

        2. Stephen

          “I am not claiming any right except the right not to have the results of another person’s choices forced upon me.” And implicitly the right to have your beliefs forced upon another. Basically, you want to be able to call them whatever you believe they are, thereby violating their pursuit of happiness by feeling and being treated differently than they want.

          To be clear, I don’t agree with a sweeping transgender policy mandated by the fed and rammed through a school board meeting. If possible, each school should have made their own based on the needs of the students and their community because I don’t honestly see an avenue at this juncture where you can apply common sense and, well, science. I am mostly being a devil’s advocate to further underscore my point about the dangers of liberalism which we see on display here.

          Here we have people who have determined with their freedom that they are a different gender. Since the state, according to you, has no right to violate their right to happiness and to determine that happiness for themselves. Thus, the state must ensure that their right is not infringed upon just like any other right.

          And then comes the contention. Who’s right to happiness wins out? Your’s or their’s? It is an entirely self-created dichotomy from Liberalism itself. Since all can determine happiness for themselves, whose happiness is going to be protected and whose will be abolished? Apart from the dizzying implications of Liberalism’s sloppy, inconsistent philosophy, we have true conservatism which holds to the truths that tradition is not to be discarded as tutelage; that moral censure is a good thing; that physical realities are just as valid as mental ones; and that happiness is a state of character, lying in a mean relative to us such that the man of practical wisdom would be able to determine it.

          Like

        3. @Stephen

          If you are not against freedom of religion, including the free exercise of religion, then why don’t you say so?

          What have you done instead? You equate not be willing to suppress foolish behavior with being in favor of it. How could we punish someone who doesn’t accept the gender God gave them any more than they are already punishing themselves?

          What is our obligation? When someone makes a foolish choice, they have no right to inflict the consequences their bad choice upon others. When we include gender orientation in nondiscrimination laws, that is the crux of the problem. The gender confused use these laws to force other people to approve of and participate in their fantasy world.

          You claim to know the will of God. Well, maybe you do and maybe you don’t. However, the majority of people don’t agree about much of anything. In fact, it is difficult enough just to get people to leave each other in peace. Consider yourself as an example.

          Our primary concern SHOULD NOT be making other people believe what “we” (whoever we might be) believe. Our primary concern SHOULD NOT be making other people do what “we” think they ought to do. Our primary concern SHOULD NOT be protect the rights of our family, friends, and neighbors to be allowed to believe and live as they think proper. My hope is that most people will see the wisdom in being more concerned about protecting the rights of the people they love than they are about imposing their beliefs upon others.

          You say my position obligates the state to ensure that no one infringes upon the rights of the gender confused. That much is true of everyone. What you have yet to explain is how my position obligates the state to force anyone to participate in gender confusion.

          You pile heap of random assertions that form a gobbledygook philosophy. Of course, you are quite likely to say you make perfect sense. Then you will pile on more assertions, creating a still more impressive formation of gobbledygook. Yet you avoid answering a straightforward question. I dare say that should bother you more than me

          Like

  3. “They may as well demand that because they want to get drunk everyone else has to get drunk.”

    Drunk is the right word. Drunk on madness and folly in my opinion.

    If I was a fortune teller, I would see this heading on a future Supreme Court Docket.

    USA potty rights v. Prince William County Public Schools

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.