Teachers want clarity on single-sex spaces in schools
Teachers are calling on the Scottish government to urgently publish new guidance on how schools should deal with single-sex spaces.
The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association (SSTA) said ministers need to provide clarity following the UK Supreme Court's landmark ruling over the definition of a woman.
The union says schools "don't have the luxury of waiting for updated guidance" because the ruling means they are required to comply with the Equality Act now.
The Scottish government said it is working towards a "state of readiness" for an update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the body in charge of regulating the Equality Act.
First Minister John Swinney last month told MSPs that new sex-based rights guidance is being developed after the Supreme Court ruled that biological sex defines a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act.
The SSTA says 2021 guidance from the Scottish government on supporting transgender pupils in schools is now incompatible with the Supreme Court ruling and interim guidance from the EHRC.
Last week the Scottish Parliament announced trans women will no longer be able to use the women's toilets at Holyrood and is also installing a new gender-neutral toilet following the ruling.
Gordon West, of the SSTA, says the union is concerned that teachers are caught in limbo waiting for new guidelines and, while waiting, they may be breaking the law.
Mr West, a deputy headteacher who is on the union's equalities committee, said ministers need to immediately withdraw the 2021 guidance which is now "out of date".
He added: "We have a duty now to uphold this ruling, not in three months' time and yet we have been told to wait for new guidance.
"We know from the Supreme Court ruling that the 2021 guidance is no longer compliant with the law. Yet we are being kept waiting and we are being kept hanging on.
"The 2021 guidance needs urgently removed and replaced. If the Scottish Parliament can make decisions on this why can't the Scottish ministers?
"Very soon the P7 children and parents will be coming to secondary schools for their transition into secondary schools and they will be asking what is happening with changing rooms."
Teaching union the NASUWT recently raised concerns at its annual conference that the Supreme Court ruling could lead to an increase in hate crimes against trans and non-binary teachers.
The union in Scotland also said it was vital that gender-neutral spaces be made available for transgender pupils who are uncomfortable using the changing rooms or toilets of their sex assigned at birth.
Trans people are still protected by the Equality Act.
The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not affected by the Supreme Court judgement, and while explaining the ruling, Lord Hodge stressed there were other defences against direct and indirect discrimination and harassment.
He was clear that trans people are a "vulnerable and often harassed minority", who "struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity".
A Scottish government spokesman said that all organisations were expected to consider the EHRC's revised code of practice and guidance when it is published by the summer.
He added: "The Scottish government has established a Short Life Working Group to ensure support and consistency across government.
"This work will position us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps when the EHRC's code of practice and updated guidance are published."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Southern Baptists to vote on effort to overturn same-sex marriage
Conservative Christian activists hope to build on their movement's success in overturning Roe v. Wade, the now-defunct Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, in 2022, and to apply the legal and political strategies that proved effective for that victory. Public support for legal same-sex marriage remains high, with more than two-thirds of American adults supporting it. As with abortion, activists hope to gain political power despite their minority viewpoints. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Christians are called to play the long game,' said Andrew T. Walker, an ethicist at a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky who wrote the resolution. He leads the Southern Baptist Convention's resolution committee, which coordinates proposals from Baptists around the country to be put for a vote at the annual meeting. Related : Advertisement 'There are burgeoning embryonic efforts being discussed at the legal-strategy level on how to begin to challenge Obergefell,' he said. 'How do we take the lessons from Roe that took 50 years? What is the legal strategy to overturn Obergefell at some point in the future?' Advertisement Activists are aware that their mission may take years. But the resolution calling for this concrete action shows 'a deepening of Southern Baptist thinking on this issue' and a recognition of the need for a long-term strategy similar to the one that ended a constitutional right to abortion, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He said 'there's a great deal of engagement' on this issue between Southern Baptist leaders and lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal advocacy group that worked to overturn Roe. 'As in Roe, it is not just a matter of arguing for or against abortion,' he said. 'It is also the larger pattern in terms of constitutional interpretation.' Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrated outside the US Supreme Court following the ruling on same-sex marriage, on June 26, 2015. DOUG MILLS/NYT The Southern Baptist resolution, titled 'On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,' reflects a movement within conservative Christianity to see that laws align with their set of Biblical values and a political commitment to pursue those goals. The resolution calls for overturning not just Obergefell, but also any laws and policies 'that defy God's design for marriage and family,' potentially including the Respect for Marriage Act, a law that former President Joe Biden signed in 2022 mandating federal recognition for same-sex marriages. The resolution also specifically calls for the restriction of commercial surrogacy. Related : Lawmakers have a duty 'to pass laws that reflect the truth of creation,' it says, 'and to oppose any law that denies or undermines what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.' The measure also reflects an alignment with other Republican goals, and calls for laws that would 'strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in female athletic competition.' Advertisement Couples waited to apply for marriage licenses at Cambridge City Hall on May 17, 2004. RUTH FREMSON/NYT To go into effect, the resolution needs to pass by simple majority vote. Organizers say it is widely expected to pass. Passing the measure could be used as evidence to prove to politicians that culturally unpopular positions have support. Public opinion on same-sex marriage shifted drastically over the past 30 years toward overwhelming support. Last summer during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump had the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman removed from the Republican Party platform. 'It now seems the case in many sectors of American society that same-sex marriage is just as American as baseball and apple pie,' Walker acknowledged. 'I understand the political will is probably minute or minuscule.' Related : Of the nine Supreme Court justices, only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have suggested that the court should reconsider Obergefell, which was decided by a 5-4 majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, now a swing vote, issued a strong dissent in the Obergefell ruling. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the case that overturned Roe, Thomas directly argued that the rationale the court used to negate a right to abortion should be used to overturn cases that established rights to same-sex marriage, consensual same-sex relations and contraception. Next month Mathew Staver, a Southern Baptist and the chair of the Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group, plans to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case about Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. That request will directly ask the court to overturn Obergefell, he said. Staver has been trying for two decades to use the courts to stop same-sex marriage, ever since states began to legalize it in 2004. Advertisement Earlier this year his group worked with legislators in Idaho on the language of a resolution that passed the Idaho House of Representatives calling on the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell. Republican lawmakers, at times drawing on certain Christian principles, introduced similar measures calling for Obergefell's reversal in states like Michigan, Montana and South Dakota, and partially passed them in North Dakota and Idaho. 'That begins to show a sentiment from legislative officials, and it just begins to build a momentum,' Staver said. And while efforts like the SBC measure and the resolutions in the states have been largely independent of each other, he said, 'that momentum results in more coordination' between ideologically aligned groups, which was effective in overturning Roe. The Southern Baptist Convention, a largely conservative network of churches, has taken a rightward turn in recent years, particularly on issues of marriage, family and sex. It has also struggled following revelations of widespread sexual abuse of women and children, and the mishandling of those allegations over decades. The annual meeting is often regarded as a bellwether for broader evangelical sentiment on various political and cultural issues, even though it technically represents the views of only the 10,000 or so members who typically attend and vote, not of all 13 million members. Last year, Southern Baptists voted to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization, passing a resolution that Walker and Mohler proposed as part of a push to advance the 'fetal personhood' movement. The vote greatly worried many other evangelicals who rely on fertility treatments to have children and who believe IVF is life-promoting. Advertisement In 2023, Southern Baptists decided to expel several churches with female pastors, including one of the denomination's largest and most prominent congregations. An attempt to further expand restrictions on women in church leadership gained traction in 2023 but did not pass a second required vote in 2024. That effort is expected to be revived this week. This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Apparently when President Trump says 'illegal DEI,' he means lawful and common-sense efforts to integrate public schools. At least, that's the takeaway from the Department of Education's new investigation against Fairfax County Public Schools. Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.' It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not. Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion. The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis. Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools. Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class. The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.' The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years. The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.' In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.' Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.' The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students. Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants. The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Melting Down in Private at ‘Weak' Amy Coney Barrett
President Donald Trump has privately lashed out at conservative Supreme Court justices for not consistently backing his agenda, taking particular aim at his most recent appointee Amy Coney Barrett. One week after Barrett enraged MAGA Republicans by recusing herself from an Oklahoma charter school case, CNN reported that the president has become increasingly frustrated by his 2020 Supreme Court pick, fueled by right-wing allies telling him that she is 'weak'. According to unnamed sources, Trump has been increasingly irked by others on the bench, too, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whom the president also nominated during his first term. But the main target was reportedly Barrett amid concerns from allies that her rulings have not been consistent with how she presented herself before she was appointed to her lifetime job on the nation's highest court. Tensions in MAGA world over Barrett have been simmering for months. In March, for example, Barrett voted to reject Trump's attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, prompting legal commentator Mike Davis to declare on Steve Bannon's podcast: 'She's a rattled law professor with her head up her ass.' Earlier in January, Barrett sided with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, and the liberal justices of the court to allow Trump to be sentenced in his so-called 'hush money' trial. Trump had been convicted in May after a jury in New York unanimously found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal with porn star Stormy Daniels. But last month's decision to recuse herself in the Oklahoma case particularly enraged those in Trump's circle, given the administration had backed the school. In a statement to the Daily Beast, spokesman Harrison Fields said: 'President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. 'The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role,' he said. Barrett was nominated by Trump in 2020, but had become a darling of religious conservatives during her earlier confirmation hearings to sit on the Seventh Circuit. Appointed to the Supreme Court at the age of 48, she was the youngest woman justice to sit on the bench and also happened to be the first mother of school-aged children to serve there. While Barrett has joined conservatives on major rulings to move US law to the right, including on abortion and affirmative action, MAGA acolytes have become increasingly angered by her more centrist rulings, with some even calling her 'evil' and a 'DEI' hire. 'Amy Coney Barrett was a DEI appointee,' far-right influencer, Laura Loomer wrote on X in March. The post also featured a photo of Barrett's family, which includes two children adopted from Haiti, who are Black. Her supporters, however, have fought back. 'Barrett is a terrific justice, and, in most cases, those who are criticizing her are forgetting the proper role of the judiciary,' wrote National Review senior editor Charles C.W. Cooke in a recent column titled 'In defense of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.'
