Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy ACDC topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Don defends RSU 73’s new sex‑based policy, board seeks attorney clarification on intersex cases
Summary
Board member Don defended the newly adopted RSU 73 policy ACDC, saying it bases programs on biological male and female distinctions and aligns with Title IX; other members raised questions about how the policy treats intersex students and whether the district needs attorney guidance.
Don, a member of the RSU 73 school board, used his report time to defend the district’s recently adopted policy ACDC, saying the policy “affirms biological *** male and female shall be the basis for all programs, policies, and activities within the district.” He argued the policy protects fairness, privacy and safety and said it aligns with Title IX and federal guidance.
“This policy does not target or demean any group,” Don said. “It simply recognizes biological reality as the standard by which schools organize *** specific activities and facilities.” He referenced Doe v. RSU 26 (2014), saying that case addressed restroom access for one individual and did not resolve athletic‑competition policy frameworks, and he urged the board to stand firm in upholding ACDC.
Other board members asked for clarification about how the policy treats students born with both male and female characteristics. A board member raised the example of intersex students and asked whether the policy provides for medical documentation or how the district will determine placement in cases that are not decided at birth.
Chair (speaker 1) said the board would consult the district attorney to determine whether the policy requires revision or specific procedural language to address medical exceptions and documentation. The chair also noted that the policy has already been adopted and that the board is seeking legal guidance on implementation details.
The discussion mixed legal, medical and practical concerns: Don emphasized compliance with federal directives and Title IX protections for female athletes, while other members pressed for clarity on how the policy will treat students whose medical or developmental circumstances do not fit a strict two‑category framework. The chair pledged to follow up with the board’s attorney and report back with any recommended clarifications or changes.
