St. Landry Schools Pronoun Policy, 'They talk about the closet for a reason'
This policy aligns with state rules. The was adopted by the state last year, requiring each public-school governing authority to adopt the policy ensuring students' legal names and pronouns are used at school.
The policy being discussed in St. Landry Parish reads, 'An employee of the St. Landry Parish School Board shall not be required to address a student by a name other than the student's legal name, or a derivative thereof, and the employee shall not be required to use a pronoun that is inconsistent with the student's sex.'
Louisiana legislative session ends with big wins for conservatives on social issues, compromises on major policies
The policy outlines consequences for those who don't comply.
'lf a school employee refers to a minor student by a pronoun that is inconsistent with thestudent's sex or refers to the student by a name other than the student's legal name, or aderivative thereof, the parent may seek corrective action by the school principal so thatthe student will be addressed according to the student's sex.'
'lf the school principal intentionally refuses to implement corrective action, or, if after theschool principal implements corrective action, an employee intentionally refuses to honorthe corrective action, then the parent shall have remedies as follow:An employee, parent of a minor student, or a student who has reached the ageof majority aggrieved by an intentional violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 917:2122by a public school shall have a private cause of action for injunctive relief,monetary damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and any otherappropriate relief.'
Lafayette Parish School Board adopted the same policy last month.
Local LGBTQ+ activist Matthew Humphrey (he/him) told News Ten this policy creates consequences for queer children.
'These kids already feel different inside. They're struggling with something that even their educators don't understand and refuse to try to understand,' Humphrey said. 'They're navigating uncharted waters, and now they're being told that the place that is supposed to be safe for them, that they go every day, and the teachers that are supposed to teach them how to do life, don't even have to respect how they feel inside.'
He also said the pronoun policy seems to serve no purpose.
'I don't think it actually serves any sort of purpose for the school board. I don't think it serves a purpose for the school or the children that are in it,' Humphrey said.
Humphrey said if he could tell lawmakers who pushed the 'Given Name Act' anything, he would ask them to 'leave the kids alone.'
'If I were sitting with a group of trans kids, and we were reading over this policy, I would tell them that, 'Okay, well, then just hide yourself in school, because that's what they're telling you to do,'' Humphrey said. 'It's not as though we haven't always been doing this.'
He continued, 'They talk about the closet for a reason, and we get put there. We get told that we have to stay in there, so that other people are comfortable with pretending that we don't exist. And we do exist.'
One school board member told News Ten this discussion is to determine whether or not this policy will be brought before the board to be voted on in the next board meeting.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
02-07-2025
- CNN
Trump urges Supreme Court to let him fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis to permit the firing of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, as the White House continues to attempt to assert more control over independent agencies. Trump dismissed the three Joe Biden-appointees in May, but a federal district court last month ordered their reinstatement. The administration is asking the Supreme Court to pause the lower court order, a move that would take the three commissioners off the board again. The appeal is the latest to reach the high court dealing with the administration's power to fire board members at agencies Congress set up to have independence from the whims of the White House. The court has been receptive to Trump's arguments in earlier cases, giving his administration more control over those agencies – at least in the short term. The litigation around the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has 'thrown the agency into chaos,' the Trump administration told the Supreme Court and has 'put agency staff in the untenable position of deciding which commissioners' directives to follow.' The agency is charged with protecting consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls and taking other enforcement steps. Trump has had considerable success with similar claims over independent agencies at the Supreme Court. In May, the court, in an unsigned opinion, allowed Trump to fire officials at two independent federal labor agencies that enforce worker protections. The Department of Justice heavily cited that outcome in its appeal to the high court Wednesday. 'Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the president,' the court wrote in its opinion at the time, 'he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.' Writing for the dissenting justices, Justice Elena Kagan said the majority had effectively overruled a decades-old Supreme Court case, Humphrey's Executor v. US, that allowed Congress to require presidents to show cause – such as malfeasance – before dismissing board members overseeing independent agencies. In the Consumer Product Safety Commission case now pending, the Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump's appeal – despite the outcome in the earlier case. In a concurring opinion, US Circuit Judge James Wynn noted that the Supreme Court had not yet technically overturned Humphrey's Executor. 'That precedent remains binding on this court unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it,' wrote Wynn, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama. In its filing Wednesday, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to issue an immediate 'administrative stay' that would let Trump keep the members off the board for a few days while the court considers the case. The board members fired back rapidly with a brief Wednesday rejecting the need for that outcome. Because the board members are 'currently serving and have been since June 13,' they told the court, 'an administrative stay would disrupt the status quo.'
American Press
23-06-2025
- American Press
Governor signs off on sales tax vote for Jeff Davis
(Special to the American Press) Efforts by the Jeff Davis Parish School Board to secure additional funding for employee salaries are moving forward. Superintendent John Hall said Thursday, Gov. Jeff Landry has signed House Bill 57, introduced by Rep. Troy Romero, which now allows the school board to seek an additional half-cent sales tax. The state's approval was crucial because the parish is currently at its maximum sales tax rate. Hall said the bill enables local voters to decide in a referendum whether to authorize the school board to levy the additional sales tax specifically for salaries. The school board will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Thursday, July 17, at 203 East Plaquemine Street, to consider adopting a resolution to call for an election this fall. The election will authorize the levy of a sales and use tax, which the board voted to pursue in May. If approved by voters, the half-cent sales tax is estimated to generate about $3,000 for certified teachers and $2,000 for support staff, depending on the amount of sales taxes collected. Hall said the proposed tax would create a stable funding source for annual salary stipends for the district's nearly 800 employees. The stipends would be distributed to permanent employees, including part-time custodians and aides, but would not be extended to substitutes or voucher workers. School board members are hopeful that the dedicated funding will help the district attract and retain qualified employees, especially classroom teachers. If approved by voters, the collection of the sales tax would begin in January 2026. The state is also moving forward on plans to improve salary for school employees. In the 2025-2026 academy years, K-12 teachers are set to receive a $2,000 stipend and support staff $1,000 funded by the state. Additionally, voters statewide will also consider a constitutional amendment for permanent raises of $2,250 for K-12 teachers and $1,225 for support staff. A similar amendment was rejected by voters in March.
Forbes
16-06-2025
- Forbes
Humphrey AI Tool Transforms UK Public Services Amid Global Divide
Small 3d boxes linked by lines, over white In the corridors of Whitehall, where bureaucratic tradition meets digital transformation, a quiet revolution is underway. The UK government has deployed Humphrey, a suite of AI tools designed to fast-track planning decisions, analyze consultation responses, and streamline the work of civil servants. Named after the fictional permanent secretary from "Yes Minister," this initiative represents more than technological modernization, it embodies a fundamental shift in how democratic societies navigate the complex terrain of AI accountability. The Humphrey suite encompasses specialized tools: Consult for analyzing consultation responses, Parlex to help policymakers search parliamentary debates, Minute for secure meeting transcription, and Lex for legal research. Early pilots across the NHS, HM Revenue and Customs, and local councils in Manchester and Bristol show promising results, with healthcare appointment scheduling improving efficiency by up to 25%. Yet beyond these metrics lies a more complex question: how do we ensure accountability when artificial intelligence becomes embedded in the very machinery of government? The timing of Humphrey's launch illuminates the fractured landscape of global AI governance. While the UK pursues pragmatic experimentation, the European Union has established the world's first comprehensive legal framework on AI, the AI Act, which sets out risk-based rules for AI developers. This multi stakeholder governance structure includes the European AI Office and creates a comprehensive, multi-level framework for implementation and enforcement. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, President Trump revoked Biden's 2023 executive order on AI risks within hours of taking office, creating a regulatory void where innovation proceeds largely unchecked. In Asia, the approach varies dramatically by nation. China has emerged as a frontrunner in AI-specific regulations, while Singapore has developed a Model AI Governance Framework emphasizing trustworthy AI development. ASEAN released its Guide to AI Governance and Ethics in February 2024, providing regional guidelines for member states. Japan, meanwhile, has opted for minimal regulation with its 2025 AI Bill, imposing only basic cooperation requirements on the private sector. Africa presents perhaps the most ambitious collective approach. The African Union's Continental AI Strategy, approved in July 2024, aims to coordinate AI governance across 54 nations. While Rwanda leads with the only complete national AI policy, countries like Kenya, Ghana, South Africa, and Nigeria are developing their own strategies, with 27% of Kenyans using ChatGPT daily, ranking third globally behind India and Pakistan. This global divergence reflects deeper philosophical differences about technological governance. The EU's approach emphasizes transparency, accountability and trust in AI systems, creating detailed compliance frameworks that extend across borders through market influence. The US approach now prioritizes innovation velocity over oversight, betting that market forces and voluntary standards will suffice. Asia presents a spectrum from China's comprehensive regulation to Japan's laissez-faire approach, while Africa seeks collective coordination through continental strategy. The UK, characteristically, seeks a middle path — deploying AI pragmatically while maintaining democratic oversight through existing institutions. But accountability in the age of AI cannot be understood through traditional regulatory frameworks alone. The concept of hybrid intelligence — where humanistic leadership interacts with algorithmic processing — demands a more nuanced understanding of responsibility distributed across multiple levels of governance. At the micro level, individual civil servants using Humphrey's tools must navigate ethical choices about when to rely on AI recommendations versus human judgment. When Parlex suggests a particular interpretation of parliamentary precedent, or when Lex proposes legal analysis, the human operator becomes a crucial node of accountability. Training programs, ethical guidelines, and clear escalation procedures form the foundation of responsible deployment at this level. The meso level encompasses organizational and departmental accountability. How do government agencies ensure AI systems serve democratic values rather than optimizing for narrow efficiency metrics? The UK's approach involves piloting tools across different contexts — from NHS scheduling to planning applications — allowing for iterative learning about appropriate use cases. This middle layer requires robust governance frameworks that balance automation with human oversight, ensuring that AI enhances rather than replaces democratic deliberation. At the macro level, national regulatory frameworks shape the boundaries of acceptable AI deployment. The EU's AI Act creates binding obligations for high-risk AI systems, while the UK's more flexible approach relies on sector-specific guidance and democratic accountability through parliament. The US's retreat from federal AI regulation represents a different macro-level choice — deferring regulatory intervention in favor of market-driven solutions. The meta level involves global coordination and norm-setting. As AI systems increasingly operate across borders, questions of jurisdictional authority and shared standards become paramount. The EU's extraterritorial reach through market influence, the UK's emphasis on international cooperation, and the US's regulatory restraint create tensions that will shape global AI governance for decades. Humphrey's deployment occurs within this complex multilevel accountability matrix. Unlike private sector AI deployments focused primarily on efficiency and profit, government AI systems must serve broader democratic values. Public consultation analysis, parliamentary research, and legal interpretation all involve normative judgments that pure optimization approaches cannot capture. The challenge lies in maintaining human agency and democratic accountability while realizing AI's potential to improve public services. The contrast with regulatory approaches elsewhere is instructive. The EU AI Act requires providers of high-risk AI systems to maintain comprehensive quality management systems with written policies and procedures. Such detailed compliance frameworks provide certainty but may limit experimentation. The UK's approach allows for more agile development while maintaining oversight through democratic institutions. The US's regulatory vacuum, by contrast, may leave citizens with limited recourse for algorithmic harms. These divergent approaches reflect different theories of technological governance. The EU's comprehensive regulation embodies a precautionary principle — establishing guardrails before widespread deployment. The UK's experimental approach balances innovation with accountability through existing democratic institutions. The US approach prioritizes innovation velocity, assuming that competitive markets will drive responsible development. Yet none of these approaches fully addresses the distributed nature of AI accountability in hybrid human-machine systems. When Humphrey assists with planning decisions or policy analysis, responsibility extends across the technological stack—from algorithm developers to government users to democratic oversight mechanisms. Traditional models of accountability, designed for purely human decision-making, strain under the complexity of these hybrid systems. The path forward requires recognizing that AI accountability cannot be achieved through regulatory frameworks alone. Instead, it demands a distributed approach where responsibility is shared across multiple levels and stakeholders. Technical developers must embed democratic values in system design. Government users must maintain critical judgment about AI recommendations. Oversight bodies must develop new methods for auditing hybrid decision-making processes. Citizens must engage with new forms of algorithmic governance while maintaining democratic agency. Humphrey represents an important experiment in this distributed accountability model. By deploying AI tools within existing democratic institutions, the UK maintains channels for oversight and course correction that purely private deployments might lack. Parliamentary questions, freedom of information requests, and democratic elections provide mechanisms for accountability that transcend technical auditing. But experiments require careful evaluation. The success of Humphrey should be measured not only in efficiency gains but in its contribution to democratic governance. Does AI-assisted consultation analysis better represent citizen voices? Do parliamentary research tools enhance or constrain policy deliberation? These questions demand ongoing assessment as the technology evolves. The stakes extend far beyond government efficiency. How democratic societies navigate AI deployment will shape the relationship between technology and democracy for generations. The choice between comprehensive regulation, experimental governance, and regulatory restraint reflects deeper values about innovation, accountability, and democratic control over technological change. As Humphrey begins its work in Whitehall, it carries the weight of these broader questions. Its success or failure will influence global debates about AI governance, providing evidence for different approaches to technological accountability. In an age where artificial intelligence increasingly mediates human decision-making, the question is not whether AI will transform governance, but whether we can ensure that transformation serves democratic values. The practical lesson for leaders navigating this landscape can be captured in the acronym BOGART: Operate with transparency and public oversight Govern through distributed responsibility across multiple levels Adapt regulations based on empirical evidence from deployment Remain committed to human agency in hybrid systems Trust but verify through ongoing evaluation and course correction In the end, Humphrey's legacy will not be measured in administrative savings alone, but in whether it demonstrates that democratic societies can harness AI's potential while preserving the human agency that lies at the heart of self-governance. The experiment has begun; the results will shape our technological future.
