Transgender Students and Facilities in P–20 Schools

• In Event: 61.072 - Toward Justice for LGBT Students and Parents: Law, Policy, and Praxis

Abstract

Suzanne Eckes, Associate Professor of Educational Policy Studies at Indiana University

Jeffrey C. Sun, Professor of Higher Education at the University of Louisville

The Associated Press wrote that discrimination against transgendered students is a topic that “school administrators are grappling with nationwide” (2013, p. 1). Currently, 16 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination of transgendered people. The Office for Civil Rights released two “Dear Colleague Letters” noting that Title IX prohibits gender-based harassment of all students. Nonetheless, administrators have not been consistent with the inclusion of transgender students.

Objectives
The purpose of this study is to examine how legal rulings respond to calls for inclusion of transgender students in schools and colleges.

Perspectives, Methods/Modes of Inquiry, & Data Sources
Infusing both methods of social science and legal analyses, the panelists examine both judicial opinions and government compliance decisions (e.g., administrative policy decrees and federal investigations) involving transgender students’ challenges against a school or college. Analyzing the documents as cases (Yin, 2014), the researchers investigate the social scripts, which offer a depiction of situations/encounters by investigating the interactions and discussions within and among cases (Schank & Abelson, 1977). A sampling of these cases illustrates this approach.

For instance, a first grade student in Colorado, Coy, was born a boy but began to identify at an early age as a girl. After Coy was no longer permitted to use the girls’ restroom, a complaint was filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (see Mathis v. Fountain-Fort Carson, 2013). The Division found that Coy had the right to use the girls’ restroom, observing that the policy forced the student to “disregard her identity while performing one of the most essential human functions” (p. 12). Similar challenges have emerged in other states (see, e.g., Arcadia Unified School District, 2013; Doe v. Clenchy, 2011). Fortunately, California legislators reacted to this issue by passing the Transgendered Bathroom Rights Bill (CA Assembly Bill, 2013).

In California, a student who was expelled from a private Christian college sued the institution for breach of contract and state civil rights claims. The prevailing claim had nothing to do with the transgendered student’s access to an education facility (Cabading v. California Baptist University, 2014). Instead, the legal rationale rested on the university, as a business entity, blocking an individual from access to ancillary activities that are open to the public.

Selected Findings and Conclusions

■ There is increasing attention on how P-20 administrators should or could respond. As the media has highlighted, administrators have presented mixed reactions in terms of accommodations.

■ The cases above suggest that P-20 administrators have not been as responsive and inclusive to sexual identity concerns based on transgender status. At the same time, these cases demonstrate a trend by legislators toward accommodating transgender students in public facilities.

Scholarly Significance
This study examines the effect of legal regimes in addressing levels of inclusion for transgender students in schools/colleges.

Authors

• Suzanne E. Eckes, Indiana University

• Jeffrey C. Sun, University of Louisville