Chesterfield Fails to Protect Girls' Sports, Locker Rooms

The outcome of last week's high-drama, 7-hour long Chesterfield County School Board meeting (on Tuesday, Dec. 10) provides clear lessons on why you should never try to appease radical leftists. 

Lesson #1: Girls are the victims of a radical trans agenda 

That reality created very real angst for parents like Michael, who told the board how his daughter, a freshman at a local high school, found herself sharing a locker room with a biological boy. "I was told that if the girls were uncomfortable they could change elsewhere--the whims of one boy outweighing the concerns of many girls. ... Do female students not deserve to have their privacy, their sports?" he asked the board. Plus, Lisa, a mother of four in the district, expressed her dismay that parents are being treated as suspect criminals. Watch their testimonies: 

After nearly two years of parents like MIchael and Lisa asking their school board to comply with Youngkin's parental rights policies, parents thought they could finally breathe a sigh of relief in November when three board members proposed revisions to restore respect for parents--as well as protection for girls' sports and privacy. With a five-member board, those three members could have voted through those revisions.

But relief turned to dismay less than one month later, when instead of taking a vote they submitted a new draft gutting those key protections! Coming after heavy pressure from transgender-activist groups, the new draft was apparently an effort to win consensus from the leftist school board members. In response, on Dec. 10, hundreds of parents and concerned citizens turned out to oppose the gutted-out version. Before the meeting even began, police were forced to control crowd size, with hundreds of people crammed into hallways and flooding out the doors. 

Lesson #2: Parents are treated like suspect criminals

During the meeting it became abundantly clear that parents were not held in high regard, or even as partners, but rather with suspicion. For instance, leftwing board members (Dot Heffron from Clover Hill District supported by Dominique Chatters of Dale District) moved to strike language that required the school to notify parents before a girl, for instance, could change her name to a boy's name. They replaced the parent-permission section with language stating that school staff shall use the "asserted name and pronoun" corresponding with the new gender identity "at the request of a student and parent."

To his credit, Board Member Steven Paranto put forward astute questions exposing the fact that the 'student and parent' phrasing (emphasis added) basically gives veto power to students to prevent their parents from being informed.

As Family Foundation policy experts pointed out, state law already requires educators to take action when they encounter evidence a child is being abused or neglected at home--but vague policies that allow educators to keeping well-meaning parents in the dark lead to tragic events, such as Sage's story. Plus, as repeatedly demonstrated by comments from transgender activists in the audience, there is an ongoing push to label any parent who doesn't fully embrace the transgender agenda as "abusive."  

Watch comments from Steven Paranto and Family Foundation legal counsel Josh Hetzler below. 

Lesson #3: Religious freedoms are under attack next 

One of the more astounding moments of the evening was when Board Chair Dot Heffron used her platform to publicly question whether teachers even truly had a constitutional right not to be compelled into speech that violates their conscience. After an embarrassing moment when their own school board attorney was forced to acknowledge that this is in fact a well-established right backed by the Virginia Supreme Court (Vlaming case)--they switched tactics: Dominique Chatters then tried to add wording into the policy requiring more documentation of individuals' religious beliefs before those constitutional rights are granted. That was especially ironic given their support of males to enter female private spaces without any "substantiating" documentation. 

At last, at 1:30 a.m., the board passed an even more gutted-out policy. To his credit, Steven Paranto voted against it because it didn't do enough to respect parental rights.

But that's the sort of diminishing returns you get when trying appease leftists.

What happens now? It's important to take action to:

1) Thank Steven Paranto for voting 'no' and for publicly stating his intention to strengthen parental rights through proposed amendments. 

2) If you live elsewhere in the state, ask your school board members if they are in compliance with the Youngkin parental rights revisions and share legal information with them to help clarify the law. 

3) Contact our Founding Freedoms Law Center, if you or anyone you know feels their parental rights or student privacy are being violated at school. 

Remember, we are stronger when we speak together!