MSAD 52 board sends revised Title IX policy draft back to committee after hours of public comment

At its Nov. 1 meeting, the MSAD 52 Board of Directors moved to send a narrowed draft of new policy ACDC back to the policy subcommittee for rework after more than two hours of public comment and board debate about restroom, locker‑room and athletic participation rules tied to biological sex.

The board opened the evening to public testimony that centered on the proposed policy’s impact on transgender and gender‑diverse students. “They’re not your children. They’re not your children,” said Dean Carrington, who identified himself as a Green resident, alumnus, educator and nonbinary person, during the public comment period, urging the board to “make this district a place where every child…feels safe.”

Why it matters: The drafts before the board addressed the same core question — how the district will apply Title IX and state law to private spaces and athletics — but proposed different legal and practical approaches. One draft (ACDC version 1) referenced a presidential executive order and attempted to reconcile that direction with the Maine Human Rights Act; a second draft (ACDC version 2) was limited to athletics; and an alternative text offered by board member Anthony (labeled ACAE) sought a narrower nondiscrimination framing and placement in the district’s nondiscrimination policy.

What the board did: Following extended discussion and two amendments, the board approved a motion to proceed with ACDC version 2 as the working draft and to refer the draft back to the policy subcommittee for revision, asking the committee specifically to consider language from the ACAE alternative. The policy committee will meet publicly to review suggested changes and return a revised text for second reading at a future meeting.

Discussion highlights: Opponents of broad ACDC emphasized legal risk and the counsel the district had already paid for. Susan Shaw, a Turner resident and former teacher, told the board the district paid two law firms for guidance and said those paid legal advisers recommended waiting for courts to resolve competing interpretations rather than adopting new policy immediately. "Any policy changes against legal advice that put your staff…in a position to decide whether to follow your policy language and break state law or follow state law and break policy…is an unacceptable option,” Shaw said.

Supporters of a stricter draft argued the board had a duty to protect privacy and fairness in girls’ sports. Alan Sarvinas, a state organizer who represents parental‑rights groups, urged the board to adopt protections for female athletics and for private spaces, saying, “we urge you to pass a policy tonight to protect girls' sports and spaces based on fairness, equity, and safety.”

Legal framing and board concern: Speakers and several board members repeatedly referenced Title IX (Education Amendments of 1972), the Maine Human Rights Act and recent federal executive‑branch guidance. Some board members said references to a presidential executive order were necessary to explain why the board was acting; others said invoking the executive order injected partisan politics and legal uncertainty. Board member Anthony urged the board to avoid language that relied on an executive order and instead to place the policy under the district’s nondiscrimination section (ACAE), arguing it provided a clearer legal foundation.

Votes and next steps: The board considered multiple motions and amendments during the evening. After voting on an amendment to replace the broad ACDC version 1 with the ACAE text (the amendment carried by a narrow margin), board members later moved to adopt ACDC version 2 as the draft to be revised; that motion passed and the board directed the policy subcommittee to consider ACAE language when preparing the next draft. The committee will schedule a public meeting to review edits and is expected to return a revised draft for a second reading at a later board meeting.

What remains unresolved: The board did not adopt a final, district‑wide policy tonight. Key points left for the policy subcommittee to resolve include: exactly which athletic teams — if any — should be sex‑segregated; how single‑occupancy and gender‑neutral facilities will be provided and funded; whether individualized athletic accommodations (for intersex or other students) require board review; and how the district will balance competing state and federal legal guidance.

Board and community reaction: Several speakers said they feared the changes would marginalize transgender students and increase mental‑health risks; others insisted the board must act to protect female students’ privacy and competitive opportunities. The board repeatedly invited the public to submit policy‑committee comments and noted the next policy meeting is a public forum where community members may speak before the draft returns for a formal second reading.