Gender-Identity Eligibility Policy Will Have a Forum

Details: 06 September 2013

Chances are this summer has been a bit hotter, stickier and more uncomfortable than usual for one of Nebraska’s most economically, socially and educationally significant organizations. The twists and turns of recent events involving the Nebraska School Activities Association can be described as bizarre and shrouded in intrigue.

The NSAA is a long-existing, privately organized and administered membership organization, the members of which are the public, private and religious high schools statewide. The association’s structure, rules and processes regulate interscholastic competition, including student eligibility, in sports and co-curricular activities. The NSAA also administratively organizes and conducts district- and state-level competitions—a multi-million-dollar enterprise. Overall, it’s sort of a mini-NCAA.

Apparently, its executive director has determined that the NSAA needs a policy and processes to govern the potential circumstances, regardless of how rare, in which a student who identifies and expresses himself or herself in the gender opposite his or her biological sex requests to compete in a sex-segregated sport or activity as a transgender individual. For instance, how would it be handled if a biologically male student, who consistently identifies and presents himself as a transgender female, would seek to be on the girls’ team for interscholastic competition? The idea and objective presume a policy that would allow such participation, pursuant to prerequisite evidence of genuineness. Issues involving locker rooms, training rooms and bathrooms might also be involved.

On or about June 14, at least two media outlets, the Omaha World Herald and the on-line Nebraska Watchdog.org, reported that the NSAA’s eight-member governing board had unanimously approved a gender-identity eligibility policy and process in December 2012, after it had been presented by the executive director a month earlier. The executive director was a source for the reporting and was quoted extensively. Oddly, the approval was not recorded in the official minutes of either the November or December meeting, but the policy was in effect; the gist of the reporting was that it had not been invoked or even given much attention since being approved. Both articles also reported that the policy was available on the NSAA website.

Not for long, however. The news generated interest and concern, including inquiries by the Nebraska Catholic Conference on behalf of the diocesan superintendents.

Whoa, did the facts change at that point! Within a matter of days, new reports from the same outlets, plus the Lincoln Journal Star as well, were quite different: the policy/process hadn’t been voted on at the December meeting, merely discussed—although again, no such discussion is reflected in the official minutes.

The policy/process that had been publicly available on the website, as first reported, had been removed by the time of the second reports. Few saw it, apparently.

Another part of the revised news was that the policy/process would be an action item on the agenda of the NSAA Board of Directors meeting taking place Aug. 21; and would be voted on then. Those who inquired were told that the proposed policy/process would be publicly available in early August.

Subsequently, the release date was prescribed as Aug. 12, but nothing was posted on that date. Mid-morning the next day, there was a posting, but it wasn’t the policy/process; it was the agenda for the Aug. 21 meeting. It did not show the policy/process as an action item, but as an item of the executive director’s report.

In addition, the posting included a link to a "Q & A" document that asked and answered these three questions: "Why does the NSAA need a Transgender Policy?" "How many State Associations have a policy?" "Is there a sample policy already written?’ The answer to the third question was as follows: "Yes. This policy had not been approved by the Board of Directors and will not be made public until submitted in a membership proposed format. The recommendation from the Board of Directors is that a ‘policy’ should come through the membership legislative process. Several administrators and I (presumably the executive director) are working together to have a Bylaw proposal submitted by the District Meeting deadline on November 1."

Confusion aplenty, but the right and responsible road for this to travel has probably resulted. The subject matter is complex and sensitive, morally, socially, legally. Such a proposal warrants thorough evaluation and discussion; for instance, how much of the "need" is real and compelling; how much of it is ideological? What consequences would such a policy have on schools that operate in accord with religious beliefs?

Such concerns now at least will have a forum, even though the text itself remains a secret. It has been consistently reported that the phantom policy/process is modeled after that adopted by the Colorado association in 2010. But Colorado’s is more than a gender-identity eligibility policy. It encompasses sexual orientation as well, which is another, broader context of issues.

Interestingly, the "Q & A" document posted Aug. 13 stated that as of March 1, 2013, "37 States currently have a Transgender policy in place." The Nebraska Catholic Conference asked for the list in order to review these policies. NCC was told this information was based on a survey undertaken by the National Federation of State High School Associations. Checking that source, NCC learned that only 33 state associations responded to the survey, of which only 17 or 18 actually have policies, which overall are varied. As of Aug. 15, the NSAA’s "Q & A" came up amended, as follows: "In a recent survey conducted by the NFHS and released this spring, of the 33 states that responded, 50 percent of those states currently have a policy. A large number of states surrounding Nebraska including Iowa are working towards adopting a policy." (Emphasis added.)