Some Indiana legislators make contentious issues priority

SB 354 “is particularly dangerous because it could result in someone being outed,” or disclosing something about a person’s gender or sexuality without permission, said William Edwards, policy committee chair with the Pride Center of Terre Haute.

“How, when, and to whom a student chooses to come out to is deeply personal and not at all something that should be done for someone before they are ready,” Edwards said.

If the parents, guardians or other family members of a student are not supportive, that’s where the potential for harm comes into play, he said. Also, federal privacy laws already protect student information, including gender and sexuality, “so this bill is in direct conflict with that.”

The bottom line is that no one, even parents, are entitled to such information, he said.

“The more appropriate action here is to make sure your children feel safe to come out to their families, whenever ready, without the potentially violent and egregious overstepping that this bill would cause,” Edwards said.

Senate Bill 354, which deals in part with school accreditation, also states that parents must be notified if the student “changes, expresses, or indicates a desire to change, or makes a request to change the student’s name, attire, pronoun, title or word to identify the student in a manner that is inconsistent with the student’s biological sex at birth.”

An employee/staff member would have to notify the school, and the school would have to notify the parent within five days of receiving the report.

The bill also states that nothing in the SB 354 “may be construed to require a school psychologist, a school nurse, a school social worker or school counselor to violate a federal law or regulation.”

The bill was referred to the committee on education and career development — which Raatz chairs.

Meanwhile, House Bill 1220 prohibits a physician or other practitioner from knowingly providing gender transition procedures to an individual who is less than 18 years of age that are intended to alter the gender of the minor or delay puberty.

It provides for certain medical exceptions and establishes civil enforcement actions. The bill was authored by Republican Rep. Michelle Davis, R-Whiteland.

ACLU of Indiana writes on its website that “the Indiana General Assembly has launched an unprecedented attack on LGBTQ Hoosiers. A number of the bills introduced represent a coordinated, hate-driven campaign to push trans people, particularly trans youth, out of public life. Let’s be loud and clear, Hoosiers do not support this slate of hate.”

It further states, “We will use every tool at our disposal to defend LGBTQ rights in Indiana. LGBTQ people belong everywhere, including in our state and we will not stand for these attack bills.”

The ACLU urges those concerned to contact legislators and General Assembly leadership.

While Raatz was not available for an interview, he provided the following statement: “Senate Bill 354 simply requires school districts to notify a parent if their child has expressed conflicted feelings with gender identity or expression, as well as if the student asks to change their name, attire or title to one inconsistent with their biological sex at birth.

“Parents should know if their child is struggling and shouldn’t be kept from the situation,” he stated.

Partisan school board elections

Also resurfacing are efforts to make school board elections partisan.

Among those filing bills are State Rep. Alan Morrison, R-Brazil, who has filed House Bill 1074, which would require school board candidates to state their political party or status as an independent on the petition of nomination and on the ballot.

In a news release, Morrison states the change “would help parents be more informed when selecting the candidate that best aligns with their values.”

He also stated, “The pandemic-related lockdowns, masking and e-learning underscored the significant role our elected school boards and their decisions have on students.”

Some of Morrison’s colleagues have said they’d be more likely to support the bill if it was an option rather than mandate, he said in an interview.

In recent years, with students learning at home during the pandemic, “It opened (parents’) eyes to a lot of what was going on within our school districts that they were not aware of.”

Morrison believes voters “need as much information about (candidates) as possible. Information is power.”

Last year, a similar bill did get a hearing in the elections/apportionment committee. Twenty individuals or organizations testified against and no one spoke in favor, said Terry Spradlin, Indiana School Boards Association executive director. The bill did not advance.

Morrison believes the support is there and parent groups want to be involved and have their voice heard this year. “I think it’s a better proposition, but at the end of the day we need the numbers within our own caucus,” he said.

A similar bill has been filed in the Senate. Senate Bill 188 is authored by Jack Sandlin (R-Indianapolis).

ISBA opposes a measure that would mandate partisan school board elections.

The 2022 general election illustrates why it isn’t needed, Spradlin said. There was a higher level of attention and scrutiny associated with school board races, many candidate forums and much press coverage.

“Voters who wanted to be informed had a wealth of information about candidates,” Spradlin said.

“Elections worked,” he said, noting that 339 new school board members statewide took office this month. “We don’t really need to invite partisanship into the board room.”

If those elections did become partisan, federal and court employees would not be able to run; it would narrow the pool of candidates, he said.

Also, “It also would invite patronage into the school district,” Spradlin said.

Only three states have partisan school board elections, Connecticut, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. “Why do we want to join those few states that do have it … There is really not good justification for the change,” Spradlin said.

Ending protection for ‘harmful’ material

Another revived proposal would allow K-12 educators and librarians to be held criminally liable for distributing material deemed harmful to minors.

A similar bill failed in the 2022 session.

This year’s legislation, Senate Bill 12, is authored by Republican Sen. James Tomes of Wadesville. The bill specifies that only college and university librarians would be able to claim legal protections from the law for disseminating or displaying material deemed harmful, according to Chalkbeat Indiana.

In an emailed statement, Tomes said the bill does not ban or censor any books; it only removes the “educational” defense a school or library can use if the presence of an inappropriate book accessible to children comes into question. Legitimate literary works, books and novels are not affected, he says.

This legislation only applies to K-12 libraries and doesn’t include colleges or universities.

“About four years ago, I was approached by concerned parents who showed me a series of books they discovered were readily available to their children in school and public libraries. These books contain obscene, pornographic material no child should be exposed to.

“Senate Bill 12 is a bill that addresses this issue in a simple way, striking the word ‘educational’ out of our current statute and taking away the excuse that these books hold any educational value if a school decides to make them available in their library.”

Chad Heck, advocacy co-chair of the Indiana Library Federation, is also a Pike High School librarian.

The bill “removes the defense for schools and libraries for providing content harmful to minors and would allow prosecutors to prosecute teachers and libraries for providing certain content to minors,” Heck said, adding emphatically, “We don’t have that content. We don’t have obscene material in schools and libraries.”

The bill also has been filed in the House by Rep. Becky Cash (R-Zionsville), House Bill 1130. Last year, it started only in the senate; this year, it’s in both chambers, he said.

The senate has assigned it to the judiciary committee; last year, it was assigned to education.

“Our concern primarily is that this is going to make librarians afraid to collect materials in their libraries that are perfectly appropriate, but they are worried about being criminally prosecuted if they have materials that some might consider controversial,” Heck said.

He believes that’s the bigger issue. “I’m not really worried about criminal prosecution, myself, but I think the bigger impact is that librarians become afraid of collecting material in their libraries for fear of criminal prosecution,” he said.

It’s already having an impact, he said. “I’ve already heard from some of my professional colleagues who are worried about collecting some materials because of the backlash it might create, especially around LGBTQ and sex education materials.”

Library employees believe families are the best ones to make choices for what people check out. They can do that a lot better than state legislators, Heck said.