Last week, the Delta County School Board approved a set of policies that restrict participation in school sports on the basis of biological sex. The vote was unanimous.
Board Policy JBA outlines the argument for the restriction. It says, quote, “preserving fairness in interscholastic activities and athletic competition, protecting student safety, and maintaining equitable opportunities for male and female students are legitimate and important educational objectives of the District.” According to supporters, this policy is a common-sense measure to ensure those objectives are met.
Not everyone sees it that way.
Transgender athletes, specifically trans women competing in women’s sports, is one of the most contentious culture war issues of this year. As a political flashpoint, it’s often used by politicians or advocacy groups to heighten fears around transgender inclusion.
It’s important to take a step back to break down the specific language of the new Delta policy.
JBA-R is the policy that provides procedural regulations and the mechanisms of enforcement for the ban.
It states that if a principal or athletic director has “credible” evidence, they are to meet privately with the student and the student's parent or guardian to discuss the concern and understand the circumstances.
They are required to explain the applicable requirements of the policy and discuss available options to satisfy questions about the students biological sex with the student and parent or guardian.
If a student or their parents dispute the district's questioning of their biological sex, eligibility, or documentation, they are to be referred to the Superintendent or a designee.
The text of JBA-R clearly states that information regarding the investigation cannot be shared beyond employees who have a legitimate educational or administrative need to know. The district also cannot disclose confidential information about another student when responding to concerns raised by a parent, student, employee, or community member. Staff members also cannot publicly question, privately confront, or investigate a student in regards to the policy. However, the “credible” evidence may come from anyone– a parent, a fellow student, or someone unaffiliated with the school.
During the investigation, the administration may decide to request documents or records which they themselves deem to be "reasonably necessary" to determine the biological sex of a child. Still, the policy does not provide specifics or even generalities for what documents might be requested or allowed to be off-limits for investigators to request.
Board President Beth Suppes says a birth certificate is sufficient, but that’s not written into the policy. No current or future board members or administrators are bound to the sufficiency of a birth certificate.
While the procedural aspects of the district's ban on transgender athletes leave a lot of ambiguity, the district leaves even less detail around what supposed evidence would even warrant initiating this process.
The policy states that an investigation will commence when a “coach or athletic director” has received “credible information that raises a credible question” regarding a student’s biological sex. It does, however, specify that the information must be based on more than rumor, speculation, or a negative characterization of the student, but still leaves the term “credible” open to interpretation.
We asked Suppes if she could provide any clarity. She told us that the policy “allows the administration to work with legal counsel if these concerns are raised in any of the schools in our district. The Board intentionally omitted rigid criteria from these policies to ensure confidentiality is fully protected when addressing these matters.”
Suppes says she believes the policy is sufficient for protecting students from being investigated if they’re simply taller, stronger, or more muscular than their peers.
That begs the question: how does one obtain first-hand information that a child’s genitalia doesn’t match that of the child’s gendered presentation? If concern cannot be based on speculation or rumor, then what exactly is it based on?
There is also no timeline provided for when a claim needs to be resolved, given that each situation would be handled case-by-case. One would hope that if a concern arises, a student wouldn’t be suspended from practice or games pending the outcome of the investigation but the policy doesn’t say they won’t be.
As Suppes said, some of these details intentionally lack specification so that administration can make the most appropriate determination on a case-by-case basis.
That doesn’t really leave any avenue for recourse for students or parents. The administrator designated to investigate is not bound to a timeline or a specific process and appears to have free rein to request sensitive information that parents will be forced to provide unless they want their child removed from a team. Suppes says she believes “these policies ensure that each instance will be handled reasonably, confidentially, and in the least invasive way possible.”
But by leaving key terms and procedures open to interpretation, the district gives administrators considerable discretion in deciding when a student’s eligibility to participate should be questioned and how that process should unfold. Without more specific guidelines around evidence, timelines, and appeals, it remains unclear what protections students and families will have if their eligibility to participate in a sport is challenged.