Trump admin probes Illinois school over allegations girls were forced to change in front of trans student
The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights announced on Thursday that it is launching an investigation into the Illinois Department of Education, the Chicago Public School District 299 and Deerfield Public Schools District 109 over reported Title IX violations.
The reported violations stem from an alleged incident involving middle school girls being forced to change in the same locker room as a transgender student.
"Congress enacted Title IX to end sex-based discrimination against females in educational programs, and its implementing regulations have long reflected the common sense practice of schools providing separate intimate facilities for males and females," said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor in the announcement.
"The architects of Title IX understood that males and females, especially minors, have a right to be free from compelled exposure of their bodies or from engaging in intimate activities—like changing their clothes in a locker room—in front of the opposite sex," Trainor continued.
"This preserves the privacy and safety of all involved, especially young girls. The Department is deeply troubled by these allegations and will investigate this matter fully."
Illinois mother Nicole Georgas brought the situation to light when she filed a civil rights complaint with the Justice Department after alleging that school administrators attempted to force her 13-year-old daughter to change in front of a transgender student in the girls' locker room last month.
She revealed the complaint during a Board of Education meeting for Deerfield Public School District 109 last week, claiming the incident took place last month after her daughter refused to change into her uniform during physical education because a biological male student was present at the time.
"The girls want their locker rooms and bathrooms back. They want their privacy back. This is why I'm here tonight. My 13-year-old daughter's well-being, mental health and privacy are at stake," Georgas said during her speech at the board meeting on Thursday.
According to Georgas, her daughter was "frightened" and "extremely upset" on Feb. 5 when she was using the girls' bathroom and noticed a transgender student was using the facilities at the same time.
"She was told by the administration that a student can use the bathroom as well as a female locker room because they now identify as female," Georgas said of the explanation administrators allegedly provided to her daughter.
Georgas then raised the issue to the school's administration, noting to them that she believed it was a direct violation of President Donald Trump's Keeping Men out of Women's Sports executive order. She said in her speech that the administration informed her that, under the direction of their legal counsel, the student was free to use both the girls' bathroom and the girls' locker room.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Deerfield Public Schools District 109 said no student is required to change in front of others in the locker room and added that the school's policies align with state law.
"District 109 is committed to providing a learning environment where all students and staff are respected and supported. Our policies and procedures, including student use of locker rooms, align with state laws, the Illinois School Code, and Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) guidance. No student is required to change into a gym uniform for physical education class in front of others in locker rooms. All students in the middle schools have multiple options to change in a private location if they wish."
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Forget tariffs — GOP proposals on student loans will crack the economy
While economists and the general public are preoccupied with the threat to U.S. economic growth stemming from Donald Trump's tariff policies, serious as that is, they may be overlooking another serious threat. This one comes from Trump's approach, abetted by Republicans in Congress, to the student loan crisis. It's not a trivial matter. Nearly 43 million Americans owe a combined $1.6 trillion in student debt, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education. Efforts to relieve borrowers of this weight invariably proposed by Democrats have been stymied by conservatives on Capitol Hill and federal courts. Now things look worse. There's no longer any talk in Congress of student loan relief. It's been supplanted by partisan efforts to increase the burden, by raising the costs of student loans and closing off paths for struggling borrowers to manage their payments. 'Instead of helping the 5 million borrowers that have fallen into default and the millions more that are behind and now at risk of default later this year, this Administration appears set on inflicting massive economic harm on millions of Americans—a decision that will further drag down an already struggling economy,' Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the Student Borrower Protection Center, said recently. The damage wreaked by Trump policies on student loans is already showing up in economic statistics. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 9.7 million student loan borrowers have seen their credit scores plummet since late last year, when delinquencies and defaults on those loans began to be listed on credit reports. Many borrowers who enjoyed superprime credit scores (760 or higher on scales that typically top out at 850) could see their scores decline to subprime levels below 620. For those borrowers, the results could include 'reduced credit limits, higher interest rates for new loans, and overall lower credit access,' the N.Y. Fed reported. The credit score declines resulting from the resumption of college loan payments was a factor in a sharp increase in the rejection rate for mortgage refinancings, to nearly 42% in February from 26.7% a year earlier, to 14% on car loans from 1.5% a year earlier, and to 22% on credit card applications from 16.6% over the same period. The consequences could be even broader. Many landlords check credit scores to judge potential tenants, those with low scores might be turned away. Fewer mortgage refinancings, auto purchases, and less credit generally are all drags on the economy. It's true that payments on student loans resumed during the Biden administration. Payments were suspended on federal student loans and and interest rates temporarily set at 0% during the pandemic emergency, beginning March 13, 2020. The pause ended as of October 2023, but the Biden administration provided a one-year 'on-ramp' during which missed or delayed payments wouldn't show up in borrowers' credit reports. That ended early this year, triggering the credit score crash for borrowers in arrears or default. Biden's efforts to relieve the burden on millions of student borrowers were stymied by federal court rulings in lawsuits brought by conservative activists. More recently, the Trump administration has proceeded to tighten the screws on borrowers. On April 21, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced that defaulted loans would be put in collection, subjecting the borrowers to having their wages garnished and their federal tax refunds and even Social Security benefits seized to make the payments. (Responding to a public uproar, the administration backed away from plans to take Social Security benefits from an estimated 450,000 defaulting borrowers aged 62 and older who are receiving Social Security.) 'American taxpayers will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for irresponsible student loan policies,' McMahon said. Pressure on households struggling to afford higher education will be intensified by provisions in the budget bill passed narrowly on May 22 by the GOP majority in the House. The measure, which is pending before the GOP-majority Senate, takes several whacks at student aid and consequently the accessibility of higher education. Among its provisions are these: — A change in the calculation of permissible student loans. Under current law, the figure is based on the cost of the program a student is attending. The proposal would peg loans to the median cost of all similar programs. That would leave students at higher-priced universities (such as private institutions) without the ability to access federal loans for the full cost of their education. As it happens, no system currently exists for determining the median prices. At the Department of Education's office that would make the calculation, almost all the employees have been fired. — The bill eliminates direct subsidized student loans for undergraduates, which don't accrue interest while the borrower is in school. — The bill raises the maximum in federal loans that a student can take out to $50,000, up from the current $31,000. But the current limit includes up to $23,000 in subsidized loans. Since those would no longer exist, the full amount would be in costlier unsubsidized loans. The Student Loan Protection Center calculates that the average borrower who takes out the maximum annual loan amount would pay nearly $2,900 more in interest over the current amount. — The GOP would eliminate the SAVE plan, which was implemented by the Biden administration but blocked by a federal appeals court ruling in a lawsuit brought by red states. The SAVE plan required enrollees to pay 5% of their discretionary income annually, with unpaid balances forgiven after 20 years (25 years for those with graduate loans). Those with original loans of $12,000 or less would have their balances forgiven after 10 years. Elimination of the plan would affect about 8 million student borrowers. — The GOP would scrap rules allowing borrowers to temporarily defer payments due to unemployment or economic hardship and limits. It also places new limits on forbearance — a temporary pause on loan payments — which states loans can't be in forbearance for more than 9 months during any 24-month period. For all that Republicans crow about removing the burden on taxpayers from the student loan crisis, the real beneficiary of these changes would be the private student loan industry, such as banks and private equity firms, which long have hankered after the opportunities created by student loans. With fewer options available from federal programs, student borrowers would increasingly be thrust into the welcoming arms of Wall Street. That's a problem for student borrowers, because the private lending industry has a wretched history, rife with deceptive practices. Private lenders were the subject of more than 40% of student loan-related complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since 2011, even though they accounted for only 8% of outstanding loans. Private loans, moreover, lack some of the consumer protections traditionally provided by government loans, including deferrals, and typically carry higher interest rates. With their actions and proposals, McMahon and the GOP lawmakers have underscored the majestic hypocrisy of the student debt debate. Among the most common arguments against relief is that canceling existing debt would be unfair to all those who already paid off their loans. As I've explained in the past, this is the argument from pure selfishness and a formula for permanent governmental paralysis. In a healthy society government policy moves ahead by taking note of existing inequities and striving to address them. Following the implications of the 'I paid, why shouldn't you' camp to their natural conclusion means that we wouldn't have Social Security, Medicare or the Affordable Care Act today. Among the most common claims is that debt relief would disproportionately benefit wealthy families; in fact, low-income households would benefit the most, the Roosevelt Institute has shown. As I pointed out last year, among the Republicans who weighed in with tendentious lectures about meeting one's obligation to pay back a loan were members of Congress who had taken out loans of hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program — and had them completely forgiven. The GOP's lame defense was that the PPP loans were not expected to be repaid, if they were used to keep the borrowers' workers employed during the pandemic. Couple of problems with that: Days before Biden took office, the Small Business Administration deleted almost all the database red flags designating potentially questionable or fraudulent loans subject to further review. The red flags included signs that a recipient company had laid off workers or were ineligible to participate in the program. As many as 2.3 million loans, including 54,000 loans of more than $1 million each, thus may have received a free pass. Then there's the questionable ethics of elected officials taking massive advantage of a program they themselves enacted. They could have made themselves ineligible, but where's the fun in that? I observed separately that many congressional critics of loan relief had themselves received their college, graduate and professional educations as gifts from the taxpayers: They had attended public (i.e., taxpayer-supported) state universities, typically in an era when tuition for state residents was much lower than today, even accounting for inflation. Among those who were apparently educated on the taxpayers' dimes is Secretary McMahon, a North Carolina native who holds a degree from East Carolina University, a public institution supported by the taxpayers of North Carolina. I asked McMahon's office to reconcile her statement on student loans with her education at a public university, but received no reply. The threat to the economy is real and immediate. Households burdened with student debt tend to delay or forgo homeownership and face difficulties in starting a family or building up savings. Eradicating student debt, or even materially reducing its burden, would produce a significant economic stimulus. But who in the White House or on Capitol Hill is even listening?
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hingham family files Title IX complaint after student creates deepfake image of their daughter
Megan Mancini filed a Title IX complaint in Hingham Public Schools after she says her daughter was a victim of sexual harassment. Mancini says another student created a Deepfake pornographic image of her daughter using artificial intelligence. 'She was devastated, I mean she definitely felt violated, she wanted something to be done about it, and at that point we had notified the school, the police,' said Mancini. After Mancini filed a complaint about the incident in January, Hingham schools launched an investigation. After about four and a half months, the district sent a letter to Mancini, saying that while the student's conduct was 'inappropriate and hurtful, there is insufficient evidence to conclude it occurred in the District's schools.' 'The image was shared in the school hallways, amongst other students during school hours, and it was also shared via text,' said Mancini. Mancini was disappointed to learn the student responsible for creating that nude photo of her daughter would not be disciplined at Hingham Middle School. 'It makes me feel like the school failed,' said Mancini. Legal expert Peter Elikann says families could press charges for this under the state's new Revenge Porn and Sexting law. 'The word needs to go out among young people that you can be criminally prosecuted in juvenile court for sending nude images of someone else without their consent,' said Elikann. He says that includes Deepfakes or AI-generated photos. 'The fact that people can create all kinds of fake pornography online, and young people seem to know how to do it, it's really hit a huge crisis point,' said Elikann. 'I think it's important to have swift action, and I think we missed that critical window,' said Mancini. Mancini hopes school leaders can start to take more action on these cases to prevent them from happening again, even if districts claim not to have jurisdiction. 'There was not one communication sent out from the school department or the school administration about this issue, and for you know, a heads up, awareness to parents that this is going on, this is going on in middle school, and it's going to get nothing but worse,' said Mancini. This conduct is becoming such a problem that the state has a youth diversion program to teach minors about the dangers of sharing nude photos, if they're prosecuted in cases like this. Boston 25 News reached out to Hingham Public Schools multiple times on this issue, but they haven't responded. This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Boston Globe
12 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Female athletes appeal landmark NCAA settlement, saying it violates federal antidiscrimination law
Ashlyn Hare, one of the attorneys representing the athletes, said in a statement that the settlement violates Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We support a settlement of the case, but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. 'Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women's sports.' Advertisement The House settlement figures to financially benefit football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, who are likely to receive a big chunk of the $20.5 million per year that colleges are permitted to share with athletes over the next year. Some athletes in other sports that don't make money for their schools could lose their partial scholarships or see their roster spots cut. Advertisement 'This is a football and basketball damages settlement with no real benefit to female athletes,' Hare said. 'Congress has expressly rejected efforts to exempt revenue-generating sports like football and basketball from Title IX's antidiscrimination mandate. The NCAA agreed with us. Our argument on appeal is the exact same argument the conferences and NCAA made prior to settling the case.' The appeal was filed by the law firm Hutchinson Black and Cook of Boulder, Colorado, and was first reported by Front Office Sports. It would be heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
