Facing outcry, State College district walks back changes to preferred name use in schools
Just one week after sharing initial plans that drew outcry, the State College Area School District is walking back parts of its push to require the use of students' legal names in some software programs and district applications.
In an email sent to student families on Feb. 25, SCASD director of technology Justin Hetrick said the district was moving forward with plans to begin using students' legal names over preferred names in some applications, including the PowerSchool student information system. A subsequent email from Superintendent Curtis Johnson three days later said the district would, in response to community feedback, accommodate preferred names 'wherever possible' before changes are implemented over spring break, which begins March 10.
'Even though we have to use legal names in some cases, we understand the importance of recognizing and respecting preferred names,' Johnson wrote in his Feb. 28 message to district families.
As things stand, students can display and use their preferred name in classrooms with faculty and staff, on their diplomas and through district-approved applications, including their email addresses, Google Classroom and the PowerSchool platform. At the district school board's March 3 meeting, Johnson said preferred names and pronouns will remain available for student IDs, too.
Changes to the use of students' legal names over preferred names were first proposed to help the district 'ensure accuracy and compliance with various requirements,' Hetrick wrote to families. The modifications were described not as an adjustment to specific school policy, but as procedural changes that would help State College officials comply with legal standards.
The district did not indicate in its communications that the change is related to President Donald Trump's order to end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at schools.
Legal documents, applications and some standardized tests — including transcripts, SAT exams and college applications — often require the use of a student's legal name. Messages from the district said legal name use would help implement special education plans and allow school nurses to accurately administer care and medication.
A bulleted list shared in the Feb. 28 message from Johnson said the use of legal names is required on official transcripts, working papers, 504 plans and individualized educational programs (IEPs) for students with disabilities and state testing and state reporting requirements in Pennsylvania. Student IDs were also listed among this group, but they have since been adapted to continue allowing preferred names, the superintendent said at March 3's board meeting.
At the board meeting, Johnson said students who use a preferred name over their legal name can still obtain a student ID featuring their legal name by contacting the district's computer services team. Preferred names will remain the default option, though legal names are used for students who have not entered a preferred name into district systems.
The board meeting featured lengthy periods of public comment in which six students and community members spoke against district efforts to prioritize legal names over preferred names. Many who spoke viewed the walked-back pivot to legal names as a step that would alienate or discriminate against transgender, non-binary and other gender-diverse students who may identify outside of their legal names and pronouns.
Cat Cook, a district parent and the executive director of the Centre LGBT+ nonprofit, said recognizing preferred names and pronouns significantly improves inclusiveness in schools and communities.
'When students are called by their chosen name, they feel recognized, affirmed and empowered, and when their name appears on their ID — something they carry with them daily — it is a visible acknowledgment of their humanity and dignity,' Cook told the board.
'However, for students whose chosen names are not recognized, the impact can be profound,' she continued. 'It sends a message, albeit unintentionally, that who they are is not worthy of validation or respect. It can cause feelings of alienation, stress and insecurity — emotions that no student should have to bear in an environment that is supposed to support their growth.'
Elana Szczesny, a licensed psychologist and parent of two students, said State College officials failed to adequately share policy details and updates on its implementation with students and families. The short-notice change caught community shareholders off-guard, she said.
'Some students had to hear that news, fear for their privacy and potential safety in school, and then be expected to go about the rest of their day,' Szczesny said. 'I know families whose children felt scared to go to school on Friday morning, unsure if they would be greeted with a deadname when they opened up their computers and be outed to their classmates... Communication regarding this initial policy and ongoing attempts to adapt it were insufficient and untimely, leading to more worry.'
Johnson said the district will share additional updates with district families through another communication before changes enter effect over spring break. As of March 6, district officials have not yet shared further information regarding the procedural changes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
GOP looks to win over Collins, Murkowski on Trump bill
Senate Republicans are trying to win over Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to back the party's ambitious tax cut plan amid fears they could lose a couple of conservative senators. President Trump has made it a priority to engage with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who all have concerns about the emerging package. But some Republicans worry Johnson and Paul could be particularly tough sells on the legislation, which makes winning over Murkowski and Collins all the more important in a vote where the GOP cannot afford more than three defections. 'It's shortening,' one Senate Republican told The Hill about the party's margins. Paul has long been viewed as highly likely to vote against the eventual bill as it includes a $4 trillion debt ceiling hike. He's made it known that is a red line for him. But it's Johnson who is a more acute problem for leadership. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, Johnson on Wednesday got into an extended back-and-forth with Trump during the Senate Finance Committee's meeting at the White House, with one of the sources going a step further and describing it as 'contentious.' While Republicans think Johnson may still come to back the bill, the exchange only made GOP leaders more unsettled about him. That means they have to make sure Murkowski and Collins, who memorably voted against Trump on various issues in his first term, are in play on the bill. 'It's a very delicate balance,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill. 'Obviously, we have people that have different priorities, different equities that run the gamut in terms of the political spectrum.' 'We're hearing everybody out, finding out what's important to them, and figuring out if there's a way to address that in the context of the bill,' Thune continued. 'But it's a process.' Thune is bearing the brunt of the Collins-Murkowski work, multiple Senate GOP sources said. He's held a number of one-and-one and small group meetings. Both senators have big-ticket items they want to see revised in the bill. Murkowski has made clear her worries about potential Medicaid work requirements, as she believes her state will have trouble implementing them due to its outdated payment systems for the program, and the bill's potential nixing of renewable energy tax credits. The pair have both expressed concerns over what overall reductions could mean for key segments of their states, including tribes for Murkowski and rural individuals and hospitals for Collins. The Maine Republican also cited possible Medicaid beneficiary cuts when she voted against the budget blueprint in early April. The push is only expected to intensify in the coming days as relevant committees unveil their portions of the bill text. 'We're still building things on our side. … Everyone is pulling this gumby in lots of different directions,' Murkowski told reporters on Thursday, explaining that while there are provisions for energy and the Coast Guard that are very positive for her state, more is needed on the Medicaid side. Murkowski also indicated that while she has not gotten the call from Trump just as conservatives did, she also is in touch with other administration figures. Among those is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, whom she talked to briefly after he addressed a Senate GOP luncheon last week. The two are expected to speak early this week to discuss her concerns more in depth. Collins separately is expected to lean on a number of agency heads as she carries out what members have described as a methodical process. 'Susan works extremely hard, [is] very detailed, knows everything, has a lot of history. [There's] different issues in Maine than in a lot of other places and everybody respects that.' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( a member of GOP leadership. There are also political considerations at play, leading some to believe Murkowski will be easier to win. Collins is up for reelection next year in a state that voted for former Vice President Harris. Whether either backs the bill may depend on the impacts of the package on their respective states. Murkowski backed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in large part because the bill opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, which had been among her top priorities in the upper chamber throughout her tenure. 'If it works for Alaska, he's not going to need to pressure me,' Murkowski said when asked if it would be a mistake for Trump to pressure her during this process. 'If it works for Alaska, it works for me and gets my vote.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why State College Pride attendees, organizers said this year's was the most important yet
Centre County's most colorful day of the year came Saturday in the form of State College Pride 2025 — the annual LGBTQ+ parade and festival — with organizers and attendees in agreement that this year's edition might've been the most important yet. With nearly 600 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced or enacted across the country this year, in addition to some locally vandalized Pride flags and decorations Friday, thousands descended on the rainbow-colored downtown Saturday to support, love, hope and fight. Pride flags hung from streetlights, rainbow-colored crosswalks greeted pedestrians, and thousands of attendees cheered and clapped during festivities that started with a parade, before continuing with guest speakers, a drag performance, and more. 'Last year, the queer community was in a different place, so I think last year was more of an unbridled celebration,' said Michel Lee Garrett, a board member for Centre LGBT+, which organized the fifth annual festival. 'This year, while the celebration is still here, I think we are rededicating ourselves to the importance of community. We are rededicating ourselves to the importance of solidarity, rededicating ourselves to the importance of Pride, not only as a celebration but as a protest and as a prayer and as a promise.' Saturday was not a protest in the strictest sense of the word. Instead of signs and placards, attendees came armed with smiles and colorful clothing. One man wore a T-shirt that read, 'I like my whiskey straight, but my friends can go either way.' Dog owners brought pets decked out in colorful bows and rainbow-colored tutus, while some attendees dyed their own hair in bright colors. Several members of the LGBTQ+ community said they've felt isolated at different points this year, like when Penn State Health discontinued gender-affirming care for minors due to an executive order from President Donald Trump. But seeing everyone Saturday, including all the allies and supporters, provided a needed reminder they're not alone. Scott McKenzie, a State College resident who sported a thick beard dyed multiple colors, never mentioned feeling isolated. But he did remark on just how important that feeling of community was. 'This is all about acceptance and compassion for everyone,' he said. 'Anybody that's actively coming out to support a Pride festival is my kind of person, regardless of whatever else is going on in their lives, because it's just about showing up to support a society of other people — knowing that we're all in the same community together and having an opportunity to just say, 'I'm here with you, for you.'' Added Natalie Hernandez, another local resident: 'It feels deeply important this year. It feels like a moment in time where you want to be demonstrating what's important to you. And just being here is really important.' An overcast morning might've deterred some parade goers, but Friedman Park was filled by noon. Even when those sitting on the lawn were forced to rotate between umbrellas and sunglasses — the rain stopped and started at least three times — the crowd only grew larger. They weren't discouraged by the weather, or by a string of vandalism Friday in State College. According to multiple accounts, the Pride flag hanging over the entrance to Faith UCC on East College Avenue was partially burned Friday and Pride decorations were torn down from Cafe 210. The State College Police Department issued an alert Friday, seeking a male suspect for 'criminal mischief and harassment.' And Chief John Gardner told the CDT on Saturday morning that the suspect has already been identified with the help of the Patton Township Police Department, and charges could be filed Monday. A handful of protesters also gathered at the park Saturday with large signs and a life-sized wooden cross. But about a dozen LGBTQ+ supporters surrounded them, keeping their distance but lifting their own signs and Pride flags so those by the protesters couldn't be seen. When one man with a megaphone began preaching fire and brimstone, some began drowning him out with chants of 'God is love!' The number of Christian churches and Jewish groups that took part in the Pride parade appeared to outnumber the protesting individuals. One of the participating drag queens said they walked over to say hello, before being met with shouts that they were going to hell. But, if heaven was filled with people like that, the drag queen quipped to attendees that they'd be happy to be left off the guest list. 'I've been blown away by all the energy,' added another drag queen, who went by the name Aurora and was named Mx. State College Pride 2025. 'Not that I didn't expect there to be people — it's been busy — but people are still going. It's been really great.' The exact attendance Saturday won't be known for at least another week or two. Anecdotally, some believed the parade wasn't as packed due to the morning's gloomy weather, but Centre LGBT+ executive director Cat Cook found Friedman Park to be more crowded than last year. She believed, in spite of the weather, the total attendance could've surpassed last year's mark of 5,000. Either way, organizers lauded the community for a strong showing. The number of tables this year, such as 'Free Mom Hugs,' doubled to about 70 on South Allen Street. More than 100 volunteers took part, and eight food trucks were set up near State High's Memorial Field. After the parade, where candy was thrown and bubbles blown, the festival kicked off after words from a half-dozen speakers. Grand Marshal Jacob Kelley, a non-binary drag queen whose alter ego is known as Trixy Valentine, might've best summed up the purpose of Pride. 'Take a moment right now and look around because you're seeing love,' they said. 'You're seeing resilience. You're seeing hope. You're seeing power. Pride is more than a celebration. ... Pride is a declaration that we are here. 'It's not revolutionary that we exist. We've always been here. We're just tired of being ignored. We want to be seen, authentically, for who we are. We want to be heard loud and proud, beautiful and colorful, without changing who we have to be.' Many have felt disenfranchised and/or unseen by the current presidential administration, which has rescinded anti-discrimination protections and has erased LGBTQ+ data collections. Earlier this month, it was even announced the U.S. Navy was forced to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, a ship named for a slain gay rights leader. Lee Garrett, one of Saturday's speakers, acknowledged to the crowd that this is a difficult time for the LGBTQ+ community. And that's why Pride has never been more important. 'While it is difficult to celebrate these days, it feels like celebration is also an act of resistance. Joy is an act of resistance,' she said. 'Anti-queer forces would like nothing more than festivals like this to go away, and we're not going to let that happen. Queer joy is a radical, life-affirming act in a world that tells you that you are disgusting and should not exist. To take joy in yourself, and to take joy in your community, is transformative.' State College Pride 2025 was organized by Centre LGBT+ with help from State College Borough, the Downtown State College Improvement District, Happy Valley Adventure Bureau and dozens of other sponsors.
Forbes
19 hours ago
- Forbes
Two Courts Uphold UPEPA Fee Awards After Voluntary Dismissals
The UPEPA is weathering appellate decisions just fine so far. The Uniform Public Express Protection Act (UPEPA) in just a few years has become the most ubiquitous body of Anti-SLAPP law in the world. Like most other Anti-SLAPP laws, the UPEPA provides for a special motion to cause the dismissal at an early stage of meritless litigation which infringes upon a person's free speech and related rights. If the defendant in such a case wins the special motion and the offending cause of action is dismissed, then the defendant who brought the special motion must be awarded their attorney fees, expenses and costs in relation to the special motion. This provides a powerful deterrent to such meritless litigation being brought against them in the first place. But what if, after the UPEPA special motion is brought, the plaintiff who brought the offending cause of action decides not to contest the special motion but instead just voluntarily dismisses it? In that instance, can the defendant who went to the trouble of preparing and filing the UPEPA special motion still be awarded attorney fees for their trouble? The answer to this question was recently answered by two courts in different states (New Jersey and Kentucky) on two consecutive days, and which reached the same conclusion. We'll examine the opinions of those courts now. These opinions are Satz v. Keset Starr, 2025 WL 1522032 ( May 29, 2025), and Johnson v. Kearney, 2025 WL 1536078 ( May 30, 2025). In the Satz case in New Jersey, the defendants circulated a flyer that advocated that the plaintiff get a religious divorce. The flyer contained an unfavorable photo of the plaintiff and suggested a protest outside of the home of the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff sued the defendants for a variety of things related to the flyer and asked for $30 million in damages. When the plaintiff moved for default judgment, the defendants responded to the motion with request that the case be dismissed under the UPEPA. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion and that same day the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The defendants then moved to reopen the case for the purpose of assessing fees, costs and expenses under the UPEPA. The trial court, however, refused to consider the defendants' request on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff filed his action was either frivolous or intended to harass the defendants. The defendants appealed this ruling. Now turning to the Johnson case in Kentucky, where two candidates in the 2024 Republican primary for state attorney were squabbling over an endorsement by the local Fraternal Order of Police. Ultimately, one candidate sued the other, and the other candidate (the defendant) filed a UPEPA special motion to dismiss. Concluding that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith, the trial judge encouraged the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with prejudice to refiling. The plaintiff did dismiss the complaint and the judge refused to award the defendant fees, costs and expenses because the case had been dismissed. The defendant appealed this ruling. The courts in both Satz and Johnson reached the same conclusion in the same way. Both courts determined that the outcome could be determined by interpreting the plain text of the UPEPA without the need to reference external sources. The statutory interpretation of the UPEPA in these cases was very straightforward: First, the UPEPA provides that a voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action does not affect the moving party's right to seek attorney fees, costs and expenses; Second, the UPEPA deems a party's voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action ― while a UPEPA special motion is pending ― to establish that the moving party prevailed on special motion; and Third, the UPEPA states that the award of such attorney fees, costs and expenses is mandatory where the moving party has prevailed on the special motion. Therefore, where a cause of action has been voluntarily dismissed while a UPEPA cause of action is pending, the moving party is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses despite the voluntarily dismissal. This was the ultimate ruling of both courts, which reversed the trial court and remanded the cases for the calculation of the attorney fees, costs and expenses to be awarded to the respective moving parties in each case. The Satz opinion additionally noted that one reason for this outcome was to keep a party who brought an offending cause of action from simply dismissing the cause of action and then possibly re-asserting it later. This would defeat the purpose of the UPEPA to free the defendant from having to further litigate the cause of action. The Johnson opinion commented on the fact that "good faith" by the party who filed the cause of action is not any defense to the UPEPA's mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses ― it doesn't matter at all why that party brought the cause of action, only that it infringes upon protect rights. ANALYSIS Both of these appellate courts arrived at the result desired by the UPEPA drafting committee when we were writing the Act: In the event of a voluntary dismissal after a special motion has been brought, the moving party will still be entitled to mandatory attorney fees, costs and expenses. There was considerable debate within the UPEPA drafting committee over this outcome, mostly due to something called the innocent violator. Basically, the drafting committee realized that the cases which infringe upon protected expression could be divided into two categories. The first category is the classic SLAPP case which is intended to harass, punish, or retaliate, etc., against the speaker for the purpose of making them shut up. Recall that the acronym SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The 'Strategic' part of this is that the action would intended ― specifically designed ― to cause harm to the speaker by forcing them to incur legal costs in defense. This wrongful intent characterizes this first category of cases infringing protected expression. The second category is exactly the opposite of the first: The second category is where the plaintiff who brought the cause of action had no intent to misuse the cause of action, but instead stumbled into an infringement of public expression because their counsel was lazy or careless, or the public expression issue was very technical and not easy to spot. This is the aforementioned innocent violator. The drafting committee recognized that an innocent violator should be treated differently than somebody who intentionally brought abusive litigation. But how should that treatment differ? There were suggestions that a warning letter should be sent before the special motion was brought, that the innocent violator should be allowed to dismiss or reframe the infringing cause of action without penalty, or that attorney fees should not be assessed against an innocent violator. In their opinions, the Satz and Johnson courts discuss these things as well (although whether the plaintiffs in those cases could be characterized as innocent violators is somewhat dubious). What was the solution? The idea of a warning letter ― similar to that required before a Rule 11 motion for sanctions is brought ― seemed like a good one. But there were at least two problems with this solution. First, it would be a complete waste of time to have a warning letter sent to the first (abusive) category of violators, who at any rate didn't deserve a warning. Second, if a warning letter was sent and the action thereafter voluntarily dismissed before the filing of the special motion, then the defendant (speaker) compensated for the legal fees for having the letter written and such letters can be quite costly. Thus, the warning letter idea was rejected. The next idea, being that the plaintiff should be allowed to voluntarily dismiss the infringing cause of action after the special motion was filed, was similarly rejected. Preparing and filing the special motion is costly, and if the plaintiff was simply allowed to voluntarily dismiss without any penalty, then the defendant could not be compensated for having to prepare and file the special motion. This was also a bad idea for the reason that a first category plaintiff engaged in abusive litigation could simply later re-file the same cause of action and cause the defendant the same trouble all over again. So this idea was rejected too. The third idea was to not assess attorney's fees against an innocent violator. While this sounds at first like a good idea, it is actually a terrible one. The problem here is the UPEPA would first have to define what an innocent violation was, and that would draw into question the plaintiff's intent. The parties would then have to litigate the plaintiff's intent, which would tremendously exacerbate the very litigation that the UPEPA was supposed to have quickly and efficiently gotten rid of in the first place. That idea was quickly axed. Where the UPEPA ended up is accurately described in the Satz and Johnson opinions: The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the cause of action that is the subject of the special motion, but that voluntary dismissal is treated as a resolution of the special motion in favor of the speaker and thus entitles the speaker to the mandatory award of attorney fees. This is a suitable middle-ground solution. By voluntarily dismissing the special motion, the plaintiff cuts off the attorney fees incurred by the speaker at the special motion ― the speaker could not, for instance, ask for attorney fees to file a reply brief (since no opposition brief was filed) or to attend the hearing on the special motion (which is no longer necessary). For those who would suggest that this outcome is harsh for an innocent violator, the bottom line is that if somebody is going to litigate in an area which might implicate protected expression issues, then they should be particularly careful. One who has stumbled into a violation of protected expression will not be rewarded by a 'get out of jail' card for their carelessness. This is basically what the Satz and Johnson opinions conclude and in this respect they are both right on target.
