Connect with us

DEI

Families sue Colorado school district forcing kids to share bedrooms with ‘transgender’ students

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Since Jefferson County Public Schools assigned Joe and Serena Wailes’ 11-year-old daughter to share not only a room but a bed with a male student who ‘identified’ as a girl, two more area families have spoken up to challenge the district’s radical ‘gender identity’ policies.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced that it filed a federal lawsuit against a Colorado school district that forced multiple girls to share sleeping arrangements with gender-confused boys, arguing that education officials have committed egregious violations of parental rights.

As previously covered by LifeSiteNews in December 2023, Jefferson County Public Schools (JeffCo) assigned Joe and Serena Wailes’ 11-year-old daughter to share not only a room but a bed with a male student who “identified” as a girl and directed her not to tell her parents about the boy’s true sex. 

Fortunately, her mother had been a chaperone on the trip, and after some unsuccessful attempts to move her daughter was able to have the gender-confused student moved to a different room.

“This time, the chaperones agreed to move (the gender-confused student) and one other girl to a different room but again lied about why, saying (a) sick roommate needed more space,” ADF explained at the time in a demand letter seeking clarification of the district’s policies. “Throughout the entire evening, (the gender-confused student’s) privacy and feelings were always the primary concern of JCPS employees.”

On September 5, ADF announced its lawsuit against JeffCo on behalf of the Wailes family and two others: Bret and Susanne Roller, whose 11-year-old son was sent on a camping trip with a “non-binary” 18-year-old female counselor, with their son unable to contact his parents; and Rob and Jade Perlman, whose child is slated for the same trip but wants to prevent a repeat of the situation.

Despite these situations, the district has said it intends to continue assigning such travel arrangements on the basis of “gender identity” rather than biological sex, without accommodation for objectors or advance notice.

According to district policy, “students who are transgender (sic) should be assigned to share overnight accommodations with other students that share the student’s gender identity consistently asserted at school.” Further, “transgender” students cannot be forced to “share a room with students whose gender identity conflicts with their own.”

“Parents, not the government, have the right and duty to direct the upbringing and education of their children, and that includes making informed decisions to protect their child’s privacy,” ADF attorney Kate Anderson said. “This fundamental right is especially vital for parents to protect their children from violations of bodily privacy by exposure to the opposite sex in intimate settings, like sleeping arrangements or shower facilities. If Jefferson County Public Schools is going to continue placing students of the opposite sex in the same room on overnight trips — as it confirmed it would — the district must let parents be the ones to make decisions about their children’s privacy. And they must provide the information necessary and inform parents about the policy so parents can make the best decisions for their children. The district must grant our clients’ reasonable request for accommodations that can be accomplished in a number of confidential ways that protect the privacy of all students.”

For years, LGBT activists have worked to promote “gender fluidity,” the idea that sexual identity is separate from biology and discernible only by personal perception, across public educationlibrarieshealth care, and cultural traditions such as beauty contests, school homecomings, and athletic competitions.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Companies Are Getting Back To Business And Backing Away From DEI

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Devon Westhill

 

Classic American companies like John DeereHarley Davidson and Tractor Supply Co. are finally reevaluating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They are realizing that their consumers, many from rural, midwestern and working-class communities, don’t care for the DEI practices of corporate elites. They just want good service, reliable tractors and badass motorcycles.

The about-face is especially timely as the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action decision prohibiting race-based college admissions has increased scrutiny of private sector DEI practices. This new legal climate, combined with the discovery of problematic DEI programs at major American companies, means that corporations are at long last feeling significant pressure to prioritize excellence and efficiency over faddish diversity metrics.

Companies operating in the free market have one purpose: to provide quality goods and services to consumers in order to make a profit. For too long, much of corporate America has focused on virtue signaling to appease the left’s cultural mandates. Now, business incentives are forcing a return to the bottom line.

The change began in June when conservative commentator Robby Starbuck took to social media to expose companies masquerading as all-American brands with traditional values. He first exposed Tractor Supply’s DEI practices and announced that he would be investigating a list of other companies considered exemplars of Americana.

In response, Tractor Supply customers began boycotting the company, resulting in an 8% decrease in its stock price (a $2.8 billion market value loss) over five days. This led Tractor Supply to announce later that month the termination of its DEI programming. The company promised to stop submitting data for the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and withdrew sponsorship of LGBTQ+ pride events and voting campaigns, calling them “nonbusiness activities.”

Starbuck’s later exposure of John Deere’s DEI policies also caused the company to issue a statement announcing major cutbacks to their DEI programs. Harley DavidsonJack Daniels and Lowe’s followed suit, preemptively terminating their DEI programs and standards.

All of these companies should be commended for abandoning excessive DEI and getting back to business.

Now, instead of requiring costly, time-intensive programs to prove their liberal bona fides, they can focus on delivering results for their customers. Free from worry about optics and bureaucratic compliance, they can hire the most qualified employees and let them rise to the top.

But these decisions are not without their naysayers. DEI proponents have labeled these moves as bullying from far-right extremists and claim that terminating these policies will encourage gender and race discrimination in the workplace.

This hysteria is unwarranted and relies on the absurd claim that without DEI standards, there can be no equality, inclusion or respect in the workplace. Of course, it is crucial that businesses cultivate a culture of respect and dignity. Employees should be educated on their protections and duties regarding civil rights and basic civility in the workplace. All of the companies reversing on DEI have remained committed to fostering respectful, safe cultures for their employees.

In fact, too much corporate DEI can wreak havoc on a company’s morale. In many cases, it can result in scapegoating certain groups of people for grievous wrongs none of them had a hand in committing. It can also lead to damaging intellectual conformity and groupthink. DEI hiring quotas, in particular, can lead to serious legal risk. All of this results in the complete opposite of DEI’s purported goals. Instead, it increases workplace disunity and harms true diversity.

Ultimately, the DEI policies at these classic American companies have proven to only burden corporations, frustrate employees and confuse customers. Companies should prioritize producing better quality products, lowering prices, and offering attractive wages and benefits for all employees, instead of pouring time and money into ineffective policies that do not represent the American values of their customer base. So long, discrimination disguised as diversity.

Devon Westhill is the president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity.

 

Continue Reading

DEI

Despite Billions In Backing, Studies Show Diversity Trainings Just Aren’t Working

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Robert Schmad

A number of corporations are beginning to retreat from their diversity initiatives, with American Airlines, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase and Lowe’s all editing their DEI policies to be less racially focused following lawsuit threats from conservatives.

A wealth of research suggests that the billions of dollars corporate America, academia and government agencies have spent on diversity training have done little to impact people’s behavior.

What impact diversity trainings do have is often short-lived or purely influences beliefs without impacting actions, according to a review of multiple meta-analyses, a type of research that summarizes the results of hundreds of studies. American businesses alone spend roughly $8 billion a year on the same diversity trainings research suggests are ineffective, according to the Harvard Business Review.

On top of the billions corporations spend on diversity trainings, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public funds flow to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives through state universities and the federal government.

A 2020 meta-analysis synthesized findings from 492 different studies and found that trainings designed to reduce implicit bias, a term used by academics to refer to discriminatory attitudes people hold but are not consciously aware of, “generally produced trivial changes in behavior.” Per the study, the trainings had “relatively weak” effects on measures of implicit bias, however, it also found that changes in implicit biases didn’t necessarily translate to behavioral changes.

Many nonprofits, like the National Equity Project, provide diversity training services to public and private clients like businesses.

“Nonprofit spending on the left, roughly defined, swamps the center-right by a factor of three or four to one depending on the year … and yet the country hasn’t really moved much,” Capital Research Center Senior Investigative Researcher Ken Braun told the Daily Caller News Foundation, speaking on diversity training spending. “The very fact that DEI was ever created demonstrates the abject failure of decades of spending and messaging on what we used to call ‘affirmative action.’”

Diversity trainings may influence the stated beliefs of participants, but cause little change in day-to-day behavior. A study conducted by a team of University of Pennsylvania researchers in 2019 surveyed 3,000 employees at a multi-national company and found that the impact of anti-sexism training led to employees acknowledging that women face discrimination, but not changing the way they behaved.

The apparent inefficacy of diversity training hasn’t stopped bureaucrats from spending public funds on it, with a number of school districts and public colleges paying Ibram X. Kendi, the academic famous for popularizing the idea of “anti-racism,” tens of thousands of dollars for presentations. Roughly two-thirds of American colleges in 2016 had diversity training for faculty, and 43% of those trainings were mandatory, according to a survey conducted by researchers Frank Dobbin of Harvard University and Alexandra Kalev of Tel-Aviv University.

President Joe Biden signed an executive order in June 2021 ordering federal agencies to increase their diversity programming, asserting that “such training programs should enable federal employees, managers and leaders to have knowledge of systemic and institutional racism and bias.”

 

Questions surrounding the effectiveness of diversity trainings have existed for some time, with a 2009 analysis of hundreds of studies published in the Annual Review of Psychology failing to find evidence that diversity trainings are effective at reducing prejudice or influencing behavior in the ways intended.

Despite academics struggling to find evidence to support the efficacy of diversity trainings, many corporations leaned into such initiatives after the consulting firm McKinsey and Company published a report in 2015 claiming that companies with more diverse executives saw higher profits, according to the Wall Street Journal. Multiple academics, however, failed to replicate the results of the consulting firm’s study.

Repeating the studies of others is a common practice used in academia to determine if a result is reflective of reality or if it was the product of poor methodology or dumb luck. Econ Journal Watch (EJW), a publication run by economics professors, was among those that attempted to recreate McKinsey’s findings only to discover no statistically significant link between executive diversity and profitability.

“Caution is warranted in relying on McKinsey’s findings to support the view that US publicly traded firms can deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives,” EJW’s report reads. “We are unable to replicate the same statistically reliable association between firm financial performance and executive race/ethnic diversity as they report.”

A number of corporations are beginning to retreat from their diversity initiatives, with American Airlines, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase and Lowe’s all editing their DEI policies to be less racially focused following lawsuit threats from conservatives.

Braun called the apparent movement of corporate America away from DEI initiatives “encouraging” but laughed when asked if academia and the federal government might follow suit.

Other studies have found that diversity trainings don’t only fail to alter people’s behavior but sometimes produce backlash effects that make people more prejudiced. Dobbin and Kalev, in a book they co-authored, found that after implementing diversity trainings, firms saw a decrease in women and minorities in leadership positions.

“If diversity training has no impact whatsoever, that would mean that perhaps billions of dollars are being wasted annually in the United States on these efforts,” journalist Jesse Singal wrote in 2023. “But there’s a darker possibility: Some diversity initiatives might actually worsen the DEI climates of the organizations that pay for them.”

Featured Image: Benjamin Child/Unsplash

Continue Reading

Trending

X