By Stephen Appezzato
MIDDLETOWN – The township board of education went to court Tuesday against state Attorney General Matthew Platkin and the director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Sundeep Iyer over a controversial transgender student policy revision.
In June, amid public outcry, the Middletown Township Board of Education (MTBOE) voted to approve revisions to its transgender student policy (5756). The new policy dictates that the school district will notify parents if their student requests a “public social transition accommodation,” including public name, pronoun or identity changes, bathroom and locker room accommodations, and club or sport accommodations, “provided there is no documented evidence that doing so would subject the student to physical or emotional harm or abuse.”
Those who support the policy revision believe it is essential for parents to be aware of their child’s identity changes in public school. Those against the revision view it as a dangerous policy that “outs” students against their will, which could lead to ramifications for children whose parents do not support their identity preferences.
The only member to vote against revising the previous “student-centered” policy – which did not mandate parental notification of students’ identity changes – was board member Deborah Wright. The Two River Times reached out to Wright regarding the policy change and lawsuit but did not receive comment by press time.
Just days after the school board adopted the revision, Platkin and Iyer filed a lawsuit against the MTBOE, citing civil rights arguments. Iyer heads the state agency which enforces civil rights laws.
According to the legal complaint, the case “seeks to prevent potential harm to students in the Middletown Township school system resulting from unlawful discrimination” on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.
The plaintiffs allege that the policy revision would “irreparably harm transgender students as well as certain gender non-conforming and non-binary students by mandating parental disclosure of their gender identity or expression.” And that “ ‘outing’ transgender, gender non-conforming, and non-binary students against their will poses serious mental health risks; threatens physical harm to students, including increased risk of suicide; and shirks the District’s duty to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all.”
Platkin filed similar lawsuits against the Marlboro Township and Manalapan-Englishtown Regional school boards for their policy revisions.
Part of the legal action included a temporary injunction against the MTBOE, blocking the policy revision from taking immediate effect.
Originally the case against the MTBOE was to be heard in Essex County, where Platkin filed the lawsuit. However, the school board’s legal counsel successfully filed to move the case to Monmouth County Superior Court. The case was heard by Judge David Bauman. He had yet to issue a ruling as of press time.
The transgender policy revisions passed by the Middletown, Marlboro and Manalapan-Englishtown boards of education in June came alongside a growing parental rights movement in New Jersey. Leading up to November’s elections, school board candidates across the state have announced campaigns to bolster parental rights. In addition to supporting transgender student notification policies, many of these candidates also call for sex education curriculum revisions.
Some Republican legislators and candidates for state government have expressed support for the parental rights movement, accusing Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration of forcing itself between parents and their children when it comes to public schooling.
Assemblywomen Kim Eulner (R-11), Marilyn Piperno (R-11) and state senate candidate Steve Dnistrian rallied at the Monmouth County Courthouse Tuesday to protest “the continued harassment from Governor Murphy and Attorney General Platkin over parental notification policies in schools,” according to a New Jersey Republican Party release (NJGOP). The NJGOP urged concerned parents to join the event.
A battle between local and state officials, this court case could end any number of ways. Bauman is tasked with either upholding or scrapping the injunction. If the injunction is dismissed, the policy revisions can take effect for the upcoming school year. The greater legality of the policies will be considered in an Administrative Law hearing, anticipated this winter, where they may or may not be deemed discriminatory.
The article originally appeared in the August 17 – 23, 2023 print edition of The Two River Times.
