Byron Public Schools prepares to revert to previous Title IX policy without reference to gender identity
Feb. 4—BYRON, Minn. — In the wake of changes on the national stage, Byron Public Schools is getting ready to revert to an earlier version of its Title IX policy that would eliminate certain definitions related to the LGBTQ+ community.
The district's School Board discussed the issue on Monday, Feb. 3. A vote on the change is expected at a future meeting.
The version of the policy the district is reverting to doesn't include specific references to sexual orientation or gender identity.
Leading up to the conversation about the policy change, School Board member Alisha Eiken read a statement about her support for students who could be impacted.
"I know we have families and students who are feeling unsafe as our federal laws change," Eiken said. "Regardless of how our federal laws change over the coming months and years, our district is committed to all students' safety and well-being. To all of our students, and especially our trans and nonbinary students, you are loved, and you are needed, and you are a very valuable part of our district."
The change would be a quick turnaround, as Byron Public Schools approved the most recent version of the policy in December.
The policy currently states the district "does not discriminate on the basis of sex, including discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation and gender identity."
The version of the policy that the district will revert to states "the school district does not discriminate on the basis of sex in its education or activities." It does not reference anything related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
The current version of the policy is 29 pages long. The version the district will go back to is 19 pages.
Superintendent Mike Neubeck said he had spoken about the policy earlier that day with the district's legal counsel. Neubeck said the district is obligated to change the policy since the current version of the federal Title IX rule, which the district's policy is based on, is no longer valid.
On Tuesday, Feb. 4, the U.S. Department of Education released a statement to further elaborate on the situation. According to the statement, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky "issued a decision that vacated the entirety of the 2024 Title IX Rule nationwide."
The statement from the Department of Education also cited President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." The statement went on to say that the Department of Education "must enforce Title IX consistent with President Trump's Order."
Eiken asked if the district could amend other policies to protect students in light of the fact that its Title IX policy will no longer have that specific language. In response, Board member David Wernimont clarified that the district's policy on harassment, violence and bullying already includes language referring to sexual orientation and gender identity and that it wouldn't need to be amended further because of that.
The conversation about updating the district's policies came amid even larger changes in the national news. On Monday, the same day as Byron Public Schools' meeting, multiple media outlets began reporting that President Trump was weighing a decision to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education entirely.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
‘Two Genders' too hot to handle? The Supreme Court punts again
The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that could clarify students' rights to express views challenging the prevailing liberal embrace of gender ideology. We know the Supreme Court can only accept a fraction of cases on appeal and must consider a range of challenges as broad as the Constitution itself. But it seems that issues begging for resolution are being pushed aside, tipping the scales toward acceptance. Is the raging debate over 'two genders' too hot to handle? The high court's rejection of gender-related cases covering school restrooms, locker rooms, and women's sports has been a source of frustration since 2019. The unresolved question is whether Title IX protects students based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity — a question the Supreme Court has never answered. Rejecting cases about school sports and spaces has stymied resolution of issues surrounding students' rights and schools' obligations to protect them. Related cases now challenge discrimination against students wearing expressive T-shirts. We have seen stories of female athletes and spectators at sporting events being told to remove shirts declaring 'Girls' sports for girls only.' The Supreme Court's latest dodge involves a T-shirt proclaiming 'There are only two genders.' In its May 27 order, the court denied a petition to hear the case of L.M. et al. v. Middleborough. Not all justices agreed. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a weighty 14-page dissent. 'This case presents an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive,' Alito wrote. He went on to highlight the blatant double standard upheld by the lower courts. 'In this case, a middle school permitted and indeed encouraged student expression endorsing the view that there are many genders,' he wrote. 'But when L. M., a seventh grader, wore a T-shirt that said, 'There Are Only Two Genders,' he was barred from attending class. And when he protested this censorship by blocking out the words 'Only Two' and substituting 'CENSORED,' the school prohibited that shirt as well.' Alito goes on to explain how the lower court fabricated a new test for viewpoint discrimination, 'cherry-picking which First Amendment principles it thought worthy of allowing through the schoolhouse gates.' He warns the divided interpretation of the relevant precedent in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 'underscores the pressing need for clarification. … The court has instead decided to let the confusion linger.' This is not the first time the Supreme Court has dodged the schoolyard debate between gender ideology and biology. Since 2019, three cases involving students' rights to sex-based school facilities from three different circuit courts have been denied. The Supreme Court had a prime opportunity to correct the silence two years ago but punted. Negligence has consequences. Illinois middle school girls are being forced to undress with transgender-identifying males in their PE locker room. Males in Loudoun County, Virginia, are being punished for objecting to a confrontational transgender-identifying female in the boys' bathroom. Yet the Supreme Court continues to stonewall appeals from three states seeking reinstatement of laws protecting women's sports based on biological sex. The delay has devastated female student-athletes. West Virginia passed its Save Women's Sports law in 2021 but has faced legal whiplash in federal court ever since. While its petition languishes, girls continue to lose out as a transgender-identifying male, who won multiple middle school awards in girls' shot put, qualified and competed as a freshman at the West Virginia state championship. Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R) decried the violation of state law. 'A boy is competing in girls' sports at the high school state track meet in West Virginia,' he said. 'It's wrong and unfair. I'm again urging officials to keep separate scores so that the true winners can be awarded once we win in court.' As cases multiply, it's hard to understand why the Supreme Court avoids taking them. These cases cry out for resolution. Alito, with 20 years on the high court — nearly as long as the newest four justices combined — expresses palpable frustration over the latest denial regarding the 'two genders' T-shirt. The argument from the First Circuit declaring that a 'general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools' practically dares the court to take L.M.'s case. So does a fundamental issue plaguing all gender-related cases in schools. Alito's dissent sums it up: '[S]ome lower courts are confused on how to manage the tension between students' rights and schools' obligations. Our Nation's students, teachers, and administrators deserve clarity on this critically important question.' Students are wearing T-shirts, female athletes are boycotting, and poll after poll shows the American public overwhelmingly agrees it's time for biological truth to be upheld in sports, women's spaces, and speech. We are making our appeal. Respectfully submitted, it is time for the Supreme Court to step up to the plate. Doreen Denny is a Senior Advisor at Concerned Women for America.
CBS News
4 hours ago
- CBS News
Investigations into Minnesota's transgender athlete policy "elevated" by U.S. Department of Education
The U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday it is elevating investigations into Minnesota's policy on transgender athletes. The department in February opened an investigation into the Minnesota State High School League for allowing transgender student-athletes to compete in sports consistent with their "gender identity." The agency says it opened a new civil rights investigation this month into MSHSL and the Minnesota Department of Education. A June 3 complaint accuses the state of allowing males to compete in female sports and share facilities. "Minnesota's continued indifference to females' civil rights is completely unacceptable," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said. The U.S. Department of Education says the decision to elevate both cases to the Title IX special investigations team was made concerning a player participating in the Minnesota state softball tournament. In response to the announcement, Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Willie Jett said the department "remains committed to ensuring every child has the opportunity to thrive in safe, supportive school communities as their authentic selves." WCCO has reached out to MSHSL for comment. The first investigation started after MSHSL made an announcement saying it would not be following an executive order signed by President Trump banning transgender girls and women from competing on sports teams that match their gender identity. The order, titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," mandates that Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools, be interpreted as prohibiting the participation of transgender girls and women in female sports. Schools that don't comply with the order risk losing federal funding and could face legal action. Last month, a Texas-based nonprofit filed a lawsuit in federal court against several Minnesota agencies, including MSHSL, for their transgender athlete policies. In April, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming the president's two executive orders targeting transgender youth and adults violate both the U.S. Constitution and Title IX. The lawsuit requests the court declare the orders unconstitutional and unlawful, Ellison said. Note: The video above originally aired May 20, 2025. contributed to this report.
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
Student Loan Update: Court Documents Reveal Details of Trump Admin Plans
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Court documents have revealed new details about the Trump administration's attempts to transfer the management of the country's $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio away from the Department of Education. The documents, submitted to a federal court, showed that the Department of Education had been negotiating a deal with the Treasury to oversee federal student loans, a role historically managed by the department's Federal Student Aid office. The plan was put on hold after a federal judge blocked the administration's broader efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. Newsweek reached out to the Treasury Department for comment. Why It Matters The potential transfer of the federal student loan portfolio, which affects more than 42 million Americans, has significant implications for borrowers, government oversight and loan servicing standards. With student loan delinquency on the rise and millions of Americans seeing their credit scores hit record lows, the debate over who manages repayment, collections, and borrower protections has reached a new urgency. Court intervention has preserved the Department of Education's central role for now, but ongoing legal and policy battles could reshape loan management for years. President Donald Trump speaks at a roundtable event at the White House on June 9, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks at a roundtable event at the White House on June 9, To Know Under the Trump administration, the Department of Education had been negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the Treasury Department to review student loan management and collections operations, Rachel Oglesby, chief of staff at the agency, confirmed in a late Tuesday court filing. Nine Education Department employees were set to move from the Federal Student Aid Default Collections Unit to the Treasury to "discuss collections activities," the Education Department confirmed to Newsweek. Those plans were halted after U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston ruled last month, ordering the rehiring of more than 1,300 Education Department employees affected by mass layoffs in March and blocking the transfer of loan management to the Small Business Administration (SBA). The court's intervention kept existing federal student loan programs under the purview of the Department of Education, restricting the administration from shifting responsibilities to other agencies without congressional approval. Some experts have said that while the Treasury Department is more experienced than the SBA in managing collections and public funds, shifting federal student loan management would demand legislative action. The Higher Education Act of 1965 stipulates that loan responsibilities are assigned to the Federal Student Aid within the Department of Education. The Treasury's 2014-2015 pilot program for collecting defaulted student loans reportedly yielded lower returns than private collection agencies. Proposals to integrate student loan repayments with wage withholding systems have also faced complications due to income-reporting and privacy limitations. As policy debates continue, the end of the pandemic-era federal loan payment pause contributed to a surge in late payments and defaults. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that nearly six million borrowers were 90 or more days delinquent or in default between January and March 2025, with many experiencing steep drops in credit scores. These credit impacts may hinder access to mortgages, car loans and other financial products. What People Are Saying Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told Newsweek: "The Department of Education signed an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Labor on May 21 regarding administration of certain career, technical, and adult education grants. The Workforce Development Partnership will allow ED and DOL to better coordinate and deliver on workforce development programs and strengthen federal support for our nation's workforce, a top priority of the Trump Administration. "This is one of many existing agreements ED has with other agencies to collaborate on services for the American people. As acknowledged in the status report, ED has paused implementing this IAA while we seek relief from the district judge's preliminary injunction." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "The Trump administration is largely restricted from making sweeping changes here. Dismantling a federal agency like the Department of Education requires an act of Congress. So while they've made noise about shutting it down, the real impact has been around restarting payments and rolling back deferment and forgiveness programs." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "The proposal for the Treasury to take over the federal administrative responsibilities for student loans is no surprise, as this was a change largely discussed when the administration started ramping up its planning to shutter parts of the Department of Education. For student loan borrowers, if the plan was ever to take effect, it would more than likely not mark a substantial change to their current payment plans." What Happens Next The status of federal student loan management—and who ultimately oversees the $1.6 trillion portfolio—remains unresolved pending further court action and any potential congressional intervention. "It would just be the shift from one department overseeing the debt to another. At the same time, this proposal becoming a reality is something that may increasingly not occur," Beene said. "Disbanding and relocating aspects of the Department of Education would require congressional involvement, and there's already signs of hesitation to supporting such." Borrowers are advised to continue routine payments as legal and policy outcomes develop.
