MLSD, OSPI spar over transgender athletics
Distributing the letter, which Board Chair Kirryn Jensen said was composed by a "concerned citizen" of Moses Lake, was unanimously approved March 5 and signed by all board members.
OSPI responded to the district's letter March 6.
MLSD letter
In the initial letter, the board accused Reykdal of disavowing directives from the United States Department of Education and a Feb. 5 executive order issued by President Donald Trump concerning the participation of transgender individuals in sports. The letter can be read here: bit.ly/4bSiiN2.
"Your actions, Superintendent Chris Reykdal, and words could have dire consequences for all schools in Washington State, and your viewpoints do not reflect the community we serve nor the students we have the honor to serve and protect," reads the MLSD letter.
The letter further states that Reykdal's comments risked the well-being of Washington students, and cited a recent executive order from Trump designed to bar those born male from participating in girl's and women's athletics.
"In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women's sports," reads the MLSD letter. "This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports. Moreover, under Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 (TitleIX) educational institutions receiving Federal Funds cannot deny women an equal opportunity to participate in sports. As some Federal courts have recognized 'ignoring fundamental biological truths between the two sexes deprives women and girls of meaningful access to educational facilities.'"
The letter emphasized the importance of adhering to federal law, particularly Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded education programs and activities. It states the board's commitment to revising athletic eligibility policies to align with federal directives, including prohibiting individuals born biologically male from participating in girls' sports teams.
The board's resolutions include updating the student handbook and athletic guidelines to conform to the executive order; reviewing facility usage policies to ensure compliance with federal mandates regarding student privacy and safety and ensuring clear communication with students, staff and families about these changes.
In articulating their position, the board quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., stating, "Discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin is illegal and morally reprehensible."
The board said the community and Moses Lake School Board believe in King's vision and believe the goal can be achieved if elected leaders would follow "that very simple rule."
"As the Board of Directors of the Moses Lake School District, we are committed to adhering to federal law, as per our sworn oath," reads the conclusion of the letter. "We trust that your office will also uphold federal law, without allowing personal biases or differing viewpoints to jeopardize the Moses Lake School District's Federal funding."
OSPI response
OSPI responded with its own letter dated March 6 from its Equity and Civil Rights Office, addressing concerns about MLSD's new policies. The letter reiterated that the board's intention to limit athletic eligibility based on gender identity contradicted state nondiscrimination laws enshrined in Chapters 28A.640 and 28A.642 of the Revised Code of Washington.
The OSPI letter articulated that "Washington nondiscrimination laws already comply with federal civil rights and nondiscrimination statutes," emphasizing that states can offer greater protections for students than federal mandates require. The office expressed concern that the MLSD's proposed actions could expose students, particularly transgender and gender-expansive individuals, to discrimination.
OSPI warned that if the board proceeded with its policies that "may be seen as implementing, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to the Board's letter," it could face corrective action in accordance with state laws. Additionally, OSPI cautioned against any actions that could be interpreted as retaliation toward employees refusing to comply with discriminatory directives.
OSPI said if the board or district is unable to "voluntarily resolve these concerns" OSPI may take further action regarding the district's new policies.
District response
In acknowledgment of the OSPI's letter, Jensen spoke with the Columbia Basin Herald.
"Our recent actions as a board were taken in alignment with federal directives and our belief in maintaining fairness and safety in our schools," Jensen said.
Jensen said the board is committed to assessing its next steps while prioritizing the community's values and students' well-being.
"The Moses Lake School Board of directors is committed to adhering to federal law as per our sworn oath," Jensen said.
When contacted, district staff were unaware of any transgender girls participating in girls sports.
Neither OSPI nor MLSD addressed the potential for transgender boys playing on boys sports teams.
According to the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, or WIAA, which organizes competitive play between school districts in the Evergreen State, association members will vote on an amendment to its rules that would only allow participation in girls' sports to biological females.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
15 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Renaming of military bases stirs debate over Confederate ties
In 2023, amid a national reckoning on issues of race in America, seven Army bases' names were changed because they honored Confederate leaders. Now, those same bases are reverting back to their original names , this time with different namesakes who share Confederate surnames — the Army found other service members with the same last names to honor. The move is stirring up conversation in and outside military circles. Skeptics wonder if the true intention is to undermine efforts to move away from Confederate associations, an issue that has long split people who favor preserving an aspect of southern heritage and those who want slavery-supporting revels stripped of valor. Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, a civil rights group, said the latest renaming is a 'difference without a distinction.' The wiping away of names that were given by the Biden administration, many of which honored service members who were women or minorities, is the latest move by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to align with Trump's purging of all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of the Army responded to emailed requests for comment. Confederate names return Federal law now bars the military from returning to honoring Confederates, but the move restores names know by generations of soldiers. Following the election of President Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery, 11 southern states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy, or the Confederate States of America, to preserve slavery an institution that enslaved millions of African Americans. Their secession led to the Civil War, which the Confederates ultimately lost in 1865. By restoring the old names with soldiers or figures who were not Confederates, 'they are trying to be slick,' Morial said. For example, Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which was changed to Fort Liberty by the Biden administration , was the first to have its original name restored, in June. The Army found another American service member with the same last name, a World War II soldier. Hegseth signed an order restoring the name in February. 'By instead invoking the name of World War II soldier Private Roland Bragg, Secretary Hegseth has not violated the letter of the law, but he has violated its spirit,' Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., wrote in a statement opposing the defense secretary's 'cynical maneuver.' In March, Hegseth reversed the 2023 decision changing Fort Benning in Georgia to Fort Moore. The same name restoring process applied to the additional seven bases: Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Robert E. Lee in Virginia, Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Polk in Louisiana and Fort Rucker in Alabama. Other name changes Last week, Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry announced that he was restoring the name of the state's largest National Guard training site. In a social media post announcing the name, Landry wrote that in Louisiana, 'we honor courage, not cancel it.' Attached was what seemed to be an AI-generated image of a headstone with the word 'Wokeism' on it. 'Let this be a lesson that we should always give reverence to history and not be quick to so easily condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations,' Landry wrote. Bases aren't the only military assets being renamed. In late June, Hegseth announced that the USNS Harvey Milk would be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, stripping the ship of the name of a killed gay rights activists who served during the Korean War. Critics express concern over Confederate associations and inefficiency Morial said there are other ways to recognize unsung heroes instead of returning a base to a name that has long been associated with Confederate leaders. 'No county on Earth would name its military based after people that tried to overthrow the government,' Morial said. 'So, why are people holding on to these names?' Stacy Rosenberg, associate teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College, said she is concerned with the inefficiency of renaming bases. She said the cost of changing signages across seven bases could be used for something else that might have more impact. There is no immediate cost estimate for changing all the signs at the bases. Rosenberg said it made sense to move away from Confederate heroes as namesakes but that the latest move seems like a way to appeal to Trump's political base. 'I think what we really need to consider is does whoever the base is named after have such a service record that warrants the honor of having their name associated with that base?' Rosenberg said. Angela Betancourt, a public relations strategist at Betancourt Group and a United States Air Force Reservist said the ongoing renaming of military bases is a form of branding for what each administration views the military should represent. While she understands why people are upset about military bases reverting to a name associated with the Confederacy, Betancourt said that should not take away from the new namesake's heritage and legacy. 'It doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do,' Betancourt said. 'There's certainly heroes, especially African American and diverse heroes, that should be honored. I think this is a good way to do it.' ______ The Associated Press reporters Lolita C. Baldor, John Hanna and Sara Cline contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow
Donald Trump has been dealt a significant setback in his ongoing battle over sanctuary cities, after a U.S. federal judge threw out the Administration's lawsuit which looked to block legislation in Illinois that limits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The Trump Administration argued that existing so-called 'sanctuary laws' in the state run counter to federal laws because they restrict local officials from sharing information with federal agents, stopping immigration officials from identifying people who 'may be subject to removal.' But those concerns were dismissed by Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said finding sanctuary policies as 'impermissible regulation'would run counter to the Tenth Amendment. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' said the judge. Jenkins, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, added: 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects defendants' sanctuary policies, those policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' Trump's war with sanctuary cities began on day one in office, with an Executive Order, titled 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' In the Executive Order, Trump argues that sanctuary jurisdictions 'seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations,' and calls on the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from these cities. In April, Trump then signed an Executive Order asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identify cities and states that don't sufficiently comply with Trump's federal immigration laws within a month. It is a continuation of Trump's first term, during which he also signed an Executive Order that looked to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions did not receive federal funding. At the time, though, multiple cities sued Trump, and the courts subsequently upheld the legality of such provisions. Read More: What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them? Though Trump's battle might be lost in Illinois, his Administration continues to fight across the country. The day before the lawsuit in Illinois failed, Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new legal action against New York City for its sanctuary laws. Earlier this week, Louisville, Kentucky chose to acquiesce to the administration's immigration policies and cease its designation as a sanctuary city. As human rights organizations argue for the importance of sanctuary and some cities push back against what they view as federal government overreach, the question remains which cities are fighting back against the crackdown. Chicago's and Illinois leadership was very clear in its desire to challenge Trump's immigration policies. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, saying that, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety,' Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement responding to the ruling, saying he was 'pleased' with the decision. 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.' Chicago's status as a sanctuary city is just one iteration of the term—though the long-time Democratic city has been designated as such cities that limit information shared with federal immigration officers. Though there is no specific definition for a sanctuary city, the term refers to jurisdictions with a wide range of laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For Chicago in particular, their 'Welcoming City Ordinance,' argues that 'partnering with [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] would go against our mission to make Chicago the most immigrant friendly city in the country and turn ours into a community of fear for immigrants.' The Trump Administration, though, also has ongoing suits against not just New York City but also Los Angeles, Denver, Rochester, and four cities in New Jersey. Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border czar,' also has laid out the administration's plans to continue combat sanctuary cities. Read More: Sanctuary Cities Are Not New 'Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals—hard stop,' Homan said. 'And President Trump made a commitment a couple weeks ago that we're going to prioritize sanctuary cities.' Simultaneously, certain cities designated 'sanctuary cities' have been less strong in their pushback against the federal Government. Louisville's Department of Corrections will now notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before an inmate with an immigration detainer is scheduled to be released from custody. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg cited 'a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids' on cities designated as sanctuary cities—claiming that by taking Louisville off the designated sanctuary city list, he prevents risking ' the safety of our broader immigrant community.' While New York City has remained the country's largest sanctuary city, its status as such and Mayor Eric Adams' desire to push back against the federal government has come into question. Even before the latest lawsuit issued by the Trump government, Adams' Administration had been embroiled in a battle with the New York City Council and court system to allow ICE agents into Rikers Island. Though he has said he will 'without a doubt' keep the city's sanctuary status. Adams has called for changes to the city's sanctuary laws after the Justice Department suit, saying that they 'go too far' in some places. 'I think we need to tweak the current laws to allow us to coordinate with the federal government when it comes down to removing those dangerous people from our streets," Adams told CBS New York. Back in February, Adams' cooperation with the federal government came under questioning after the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the Mayor, stating that the case was interfering with the Democratic mayor's ability to follow through with the President's agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The move pushed Gov. Kathy Hochul to consider removing Adams from office.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Why does the White House want to redesign gas cans? Explaining the situation
The White House says it wants to 'Make Gas Cans Great Again.' Under a plan announced July 24 by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government is encouraging manufacturers to add vents to portable fuel containers, also known as gas cans. It would effectively reverse a 2009-rule by federal environmental officials at the time that required portable gas cans - used for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVS and stranded vehicles - to have special vents that stop the vapors from escaping. Proponents of that rule - which was finalized in 2007 - said the vapors that escape contributed to ozone pollution. But the 2009 rule created an online market for pre-ban gas cans among buyers dissatisfied with the new cans. Why does Trump want to redesign gas cans? 'Gas cans used to pour gas,' Trump's head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, said on X, formerly Twitter. 'Now they just dribble like a child's sippy cup.' But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly, critics argue. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, the new designs often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design. Some rules for gas cans will still remain in place Other rules for gas cans have to remain in place under federal law, like making sure they're child-resistant and limiting the risk of flash fires. What happens next for gas cans? The EPA's announcement is non-binding for manufacturers and doesn't prohibit the vents. Rather, the EPA is asking manufacturers to redesign the gas cans to have vents 'to facilitate fast and smooth fuel flow.' This article contains material from USA TODAY Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook This article originally appeared on Gas can redesign considered by Trump White House. Here's why
