Menu
On August 18, 2023, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Marlboro Township Public Schools (MTPS) from implementing the newly written Transgender Students policy (5756) until it’s litigated in the courts. State Attorney General Matthew Platkin is suing the MTPS Board of Education (BOE) and the MTPS district, claiming the policy is discriminatory against transgender students.. The Superior Court found that these new policies violate the rights of transgender students and that the state has provided sufficient evidence that the revised policy could cause irreparable harm to these students if the district is permitted to implement the policies while the litigation moves forward, so for now, there will be no change in the original policy, which can be found here. The specific introduction to the Confidentiality and Privacy section is pasted below this article.
Those are the facts of the case. The only path forward for this policy is now through litigation in the courts, which could take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
That is not practical. You can read more about our position here, but in a nutshell, we support the intent of the policy which is designed to support parental rights and parental notification after an appropriate risk assessment. However, we clearly need a new path forward to accomplish this goal.
We think we have an approach everyone can get behind. Our three-pronged recommendation includes:
First, work with stakeholders.
We would recommend assembling a working group to address the issue, comprised of advocates for parental rights and advocates of the larger LGBTQ+ student community, alongside a diverse group of school board and state representatives. It is our experience that when people come together to discuss issues, the tradeoffs become apparent, and solutions are accomplished. It’s not only a logical step but an imperative one to ensure that all perspectives are considered and balanced.
Second, define concrete steps to protect the terribly vulnerable.
This is the crux of the issue, and the state has argued that “outing” students before they are ready, to parents who may violently disagree with them, could cause irreparable harm. The Superior Court has agreed with the state in this matter with Superior Court Judge Bauman stating that the absence of non-subjective benchmarks in place was a significant flaw in the policy updates. Nobody is arguing that we shouldn’t make efforts to encourage children to talk to their parents, but the mechanisms for that to happen are lacking or vague. The whole process needs very clear guidelines.
Third, work directly with the state.
Working directly with the state is not only a proactive step but an essential one. The issue of parental notification is real, and it’s not going away. The state digging their heels in the sand is not an appropriate measure. Parental rights activists digging in their heels is also not going to work. We must find an avenue that is not discriminatory, protects student rights, and at the same time protects parental rights. A working group of school boards should band together and echo the voices of parents to the state. This requires a nonpartisan approach. Each side needs to work together. Remember, the state serves us, as citizens, parents, and students; we do not serve the state.
Make no mistake, it will take leadership and hard work to come to a solution that everyone can get behind. And we can’t waste time in the courts. It’s too important of an issue to sit idly back and hope for the best as it progresses through litigation, whatever side you are on. What’s abundantly clear is that a revised Policy 5756 is not that solution. We need to pivot and find compromise that serves everyone.
Current policy language:
