Hundreds of public commenters urge D11 board to reject flag and sports policies targeting transgender students
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of students, health professionals, youth-service providers and clergy told the District 11 board that proposed policies to limit pride flags and to restrict transgender students— participation in sports would harm a small number of students and raise legal risk; a smaller group of speakers supported the fairness and safety policy.
Dozens of speakers used the District 11 public-comments period on June 4 to oppose proposed board policies IMD (school ceremonies and display of flags) and JBA ("preserving fairness and safety in sports"). Commenters said the changes would harm transgender and gender-expansive students, worsen mental-health risks and raise legal exposure for the district.
Student testimony led the public comment period. "This policy is plainly a waste of time, energy, and resources for you, me, and everyone in this room," said Michelangelo Crewson, a student who identified as a transgender man and said he will be a senior at Palmer High School. Crewson urged the board to prioritize evidence and to avoid singling out "130" students (his estimate for how many transgender students might attend the district) for policies that would restrict flags or sports participation.
Representatives from Inside Out Youth Services and other local mental-health professionals testified at length. "I've had clients who say their teacher having a pride flag magnet in the corner of their blackboard saved my life," said Ollie (Ali) Glessner, communications and advocacy director at Inside Out. Angie Reeder, executive director of Inside Out, told the board that the proposed sports policy "does not protect girls. It targets and isolates transgender students." Ezra Wade, a licensed mental-health counselor, and other practitioners described protective factors for trans youth, such as inclusion in sports and visible community supports, and warned that removing those protections contributes to risk of self-harm.
Several speakers pressed legal arguments. One commenter, Joseph Shelton, told the board the policies likely violate federal civil-rights law and Supreme Court precedent, referring to Title IX and Bostock v. Clayton County, and warned that a blanket ban on flags could run afoul of First Amendment protections (he cited Tinker v. Des Moines). Others urged procedural caution and highlighted the district—s existing practices of case-by-case accommodation.
Not all speakers opposed the policies. Bruce Cole, a recently retired District 11 teacher, told the board he supported JBA as "reasonable" and described it as necessary to preserve fairness and privacy in girls— sports and locker rooms.
Board response and next steps: the board discussed the two proposed policies during the meeting. Members said legal counsel had proposed wording changes to the flags policy (IMD) and the board signaled by majority thumbs-up that they were comfortable with counsel's revisions; that item will appear in revised form for action at the next meeting. The sports policy (JBA) drew extensive public comment and board members indicated it will return as an action item at the next meeting for a formal vote. Several board members urged case-by-case handling and emphasized that bullying and harassment are not tolerated on district campuses.
Why it matters: public commenters framed the policies as having direct consequences for students' safety and mental health, and several cited research and clinical practice linking acceptance and participation in school activities to reduced suicide risk. Board members acknowledged the legal and operational complexity and said they would consider counsel—s input before moving to a formal vote.
