Three middle school boys charged with sexual harassment for not using “preferred” gender pronouns of classmate

Three middle school boys charged with sexual harassment for not using “preferred” gender pronouns of classmate - The Lion

Three students at a Wisconsin middle school are being charged with sexual harassment for not using another student’s “preferred” gender pronouns. And the legal organization representing the accused suggests one school official may have been on “a fishing expedition to find evidence of sexual...

readlion.com

Three students at a Wisconsin middle school are being charged with sexual harassment for not using another student’s “preferred” gender pronouns.
And the legal organization representing the accused suggests one school official may have been on “a fishing expedition to find evidence of sexual harassment” during interviews that failed to follow the school’s own policies.

In March, officials at Kiel Middle School first notified the parents of three eighth-grade boys that their sons were being investigated for sexual harassment.
According to the district, the boys failed to use a classmate’s requested pronouns of “they” and “them.” The school claims the conduct is sexual harassment under Title IX, which prohibits gender-based harassment in the form of name-calling.

Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told local media the use of pronouns was “confusing” to her son. She added that the classmate only recently announced the preferred pronouns, suggesting that other students were still adjusting.

“Sexual harassment – that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rabidoux said. “What did my son do? He’s a little boy. He told me that he was being charged with sexual harassment for not using the right pronouns.”

Attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are representing the Rabidoux family and the families of the other two students who were accused.
In a May 12 letter sent to the superintendent, the school counselor and the Title IX compliance officer, WILL accuses the district of misinterpreting Title IX, which makes no mention of “gender identity.” They also say none of the alleged behavior “comes remotely close to sexual harassment.”

“The complaint against these boys, and the district’s ongoing investigation, are wholly inappropriate and should be immediately dismissed,” the letter reads.
The letter also argues that the district violated Title IX investigation procedures and the school’s own policies. Based on the evidence provided, WILL says the district should “promptly end the investigation, dismiss the complaints and remove them from each of the boys’ records.”

In response to parents’ complaints, superintendent Brad Ebert released a statement that fails to address the specifics of the case. Instead, the letter notes that the Kiel Area School District “prohibits all forms of bullying and harassment in accordance with all laws, including Title IX, and will continue to support ALL students regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, sex (including transgender status, change of sex or gender identity), or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability (“Protected Classes”) in any of its student programs and activities; this is consistent with school board policy. We do not comment on any student matters.”
WILL has asked the district to provide key documents in the case by Friday. If the district fails to respond, the parents are expected to take legal action.

 

[ZiprHead]

You made an inference about WILL's motivations. That inference is an assumption.

Yes, your assumption about their motivations (to intimidate) is based on their actions.

We all know WILL's motivation. We know the Herzog Foundation's motivation. And we definitely know your motivation.

 

[Metaphor]

You made an inference about WILL's motivations. That inference is an assumption.

Yes, your assumption about their motivations (to intimidate) is based on their actions.

We all know WILL's motivation. We know the Herzog Foundation's motivation. And we definitely know your motivation.

Thanks for those illuminating statements.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is no fact in evidence that the WILL lawyers wanted to 'intimidate' the school district.

Having a well funded, politically motivated legal team threatening to sue is not intimidation. Got it. Good to know for future reference.

 

[ZiprHead]

You made an inference about WILL's motivations. That inference is an assumption.

Yes, your assumption about their motivations (to intimidate) is based on their actions.

We all know WILL's motivation. We know the Herzog Foundation's motivation. And we definitely know your motivation.

Thanks for those illuminating statements.

Do you believe you are actually fooling people here?

 

[Metaphor]

You made an inference about WILL's motivations. That inference is an assumption.

Yes, your assumption about their motivations (to intimidate) is based on their actions.

We all know WILL's motivation. We know the Herzog Foundation's motivation. And we definitely know your motivation.

Thanks for those illuminating statements.

Do you believe you are actually fooling people here?

Fooling them about what?

 

[Metaphor]

There is no fact in evidence that the WILL lawyers wanted to 'intimidate' the school district.

Having a well funded, politically motivated legal team threatening to sue is not intimidation. Got it. Good to know for future reference.

Having an intimidating effect (if there is indeed such an effect) does not mean that the lawyers wanted to intimidate the school district.

For example, the school sending the letter to the parents had the effect of causing stress and anxiety. That does not mean the intent in sending the letter was to cause stress and anxiety.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is no fact in evidence that the WILL lawyers wanted to 'intimidate' the school district.

Having a well funded, politically motivated legal team threatening to sue is not intimidation. Got it. Good to know for future reference.

Having an intimidating effect (if there is indeed such an effect) does not mean that the lawyers wanted to intimidate the school district.

For example, the school sending the letter to the parents had the effect of causing stress and anxiety. That does not mean the intent in sending the letter was to cause stress and anxiety.

 

[blastula]

Why post this as though something wrong was done by the school, without even knowing what the kids actually did? And saying they were "charged" is weird too, this isn't about a criminal court.

You don't have to agree with a person's pronoun preference to agree that using a non-preferred one can be harassment if it's done in a hostile, taunting or prolific manner. Whether that happened here is unknown to us.

The WILL people seem to think mispronouning shouldn't count as harassment according to the school's own policy, but I looked at their policy and it does. It doesn't explicitly talk about pronouns, but it says:

Prohibited acts that constitute sexual harassment may take a variety of forms. Examples of the kinds of conduct that may constitute sexual harassment include, but are not limited to:
/////
I. verbal, nonverbal or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex-stereotyping that does not involve conduct of a sexual nature.

But it also has to be "sufficiently severe, pervasive, and persistent such that it adversely affects, limits, or denies an individual's education." So, if this was just a one-time incident, it wouldn't qualify. If it was pervasive, it would, and I agree that it should. Although calling it "sexual harassment" might not be the best terminology. "Gender based harassment" might be better.

Personally, I don't like nonbinary pronouns, and wouldn't use them, but I still wouldn't use one that the person doesn't like, I would just use their name instead. You can always just use a person's name if you don't like their preferred pronouns. It's easy.

And it seems this is only in the news because the parents are publicizing it, so if there is any negative attention now on the accused kids from this, that's on the parents.

 

[Metaphor]

There is no fact in evidence that the WILL lawyers wanted to 'intimidate' the school district.

Having a well funded, politically motivated legal team threatening to sue is not intimidation. Got it. Good to know for future reference.

Having an intimidating effect (if there is indeed such an effect) does not mean that the lawyers wanted to intimidate the school district.

For example, the school sending the letter to the parents had the effect of causing stress and anxiety. That does not mean the intent in sending the letter was to cause stress and anxiety.

I don't know what this is but I would prefer you to answer my question.

What do you think I am trying to 'fool' people about?

 

[laughing dog]

There is no fact in evidence that the WILL lawyers wanted to 'intimidate' the school district.

The ultimatum of "Drop your investigation by this date or I will sue you" is a perfect example of an attempt to intimidate. I can understand why a bully would deny that, but why are you?

 

[Metaphor]

There is no fact in evidence that the WILL lawyers wanted to 'intimidate' the school district.

The ultimatum of "Drop your investigation by this date or I will sue you" is a perfect example of an attempt to intimidate. I can understand why a bully would deny that, but why are you?

WILL's letter to the school administration does demand a response by a certain date, but it does not threaten to sue.

If the allegations in the letter are true, that puts the school administration into an even worse light.

And when one family considered
halting the interview to get a lawyer, Mr. Ramminger responded with something to
effect of, “you could, but how would that look”? All of this leaves the impression that
the District is weaponizing its Title IX process to strong-arm minor students into
compliance with its preferred mode of speech. This is wrong and illegal.

If somebody clearly hostile to me and not on my side tried to persuade me not to get a lawyer, that would clear up any doubt in my mind that I needed a lawyer.

 

[laughing dog]

WILL's letter to the school administration does demand a response by a certain date, but it does not threaten to sue.

Earlier in thread I posted a link to a Newsweek article that reported a threat to sue.

 

[Metaphor]

WILL's letter to the school administration does demand a response by a certain date, but it does not threaten to sue.

Earlier in thread I posted a link to a Newsweek article that reported a threat to sue.

If you are referring to this particular article, it says:

"The district has until Friday to respond to our request to drop the Title IX complaint and investigation against our clients," Berg said. "We remain hopeful that the district will do the right thing. All legal options will remain on the table in the event the district refuses to drop the complaint and investigation."

Saying you're not going to roll over and take it is not an attempt to 'intimidate'. In my day it was called 'being honest'.

EDIT: In any case, this rabbit hole is irrelevant. The parents are allowed to do what is in their best interest, and 'we will quietly comply with everything' is evidently not, in their judgment, in their best interest.

 

[laughing dog]

WILL's letter to the school administration does demand a response by a certain date, but it does not threaten to sue.

Earlier in thread I posted a link to a Newsweek article that reported a threat to sue.

If you are referring to this particular article, it says:

"The district has until Friday to respond to our request to drop the Title IX complaint and investigation against our clients," Berg said. "We remain hopeful that the district will do the right thing. All legal options will remain on the table in the event the district refuses to drop the complaint and investigation."

Saying you're not going to roll over and take it is not an attempt to 'intimidate'. In my day it was called 'being honest'.

I never said they were dishonest bullies.

EDIT: In any case, this rabbit hole is irrelevant. The parents are allowed to do what is in their best interest, and 'we will quietly comply with everything' is evidently not, in their judgment, in their best interest.

School districts are allowed to do what they feel is in their best interest. So what’s your beef?

 

[JohnG]

Quote from the publication - "The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation’s mission is to catalyze and accelerate the development of quality Christ-centered K-12 education so that families and culture flourish."

 

[Jarhyn]

Quote from the publication - "The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation’s mission is to catalyze and accelerate the development of quality Christ-centered K-12 education so that families and culture flourish."

So, to sponsor religious indoctrinational education.

I wonder how such a publication treats the idea of gay educators...

 

[Metaphor]

WILL's letter to the school administration does demand a response by a certain date, but it does not threaten to sue.

Earlier in thread I posted a link to a Newsweek article that reported a threat to sue.

If you are referring to this particular article, it says:

"The district has until Friday to respond to our request to drop the Title IX complaint and investigation against our clients," Berg said. "We remain hopeful that the district will do the right thing. All legal options will remain on the table in the event the district refuses to drop the complaint and investigation."

Saying you're not going to roll over and take it is not an attempt to 'intimidate'. In my day it was called 'being honest'.

I never said they were dishonest bullies.

No. You said they were trying to intimidate with threats to sue. Even if it were the case (which it wasn't), so what?

EDIT: In any case, this rabbit hole is irrelevant. The parents are allowed to do what is in their best interest, and 'we will quietly comply with everything' is evidently not, in their judgment, in their best interest.

School districts are allowed to do what they feel is in their best interest. So what’s your beef?

You felt free to charge the parents with the accusation of 'attempting to intimidate', but evidently did not see anything untoward in the behaviour of the school and its attempts at intimidation.

 

[Toni]

Quote from the publication - "The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation’s mission is to catalyze and accelerate the development of quality Christ-centered K-12 education so that families and culture flourish."

So, to sponsor religious indoctrinational education.

I wonder how such a publication treats the idea of gay educators...

I dunno but I worked for a Catholic university for a couple of years and quite a few of the faculty and administration were gay—and so were a number of students that worked for me—and throughout the student body, I imagine. Was it openly discussed and acknowledged? Not really, with the exception of a couple of students who were in the…,exploratory phase of their development. In general, sex wasn’t really talked about. Doesn’t mean it did not happen.

 

[Metaphor]

Quote from the publication - "The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation’s mission is to catalyze and accelerate the development of quality Christ-centered K-12 education so that families and culture flourish."

So, to sponsor religious indoctrinational education.

I wonder how such a publication treats the idea of gay educators...

I dunno but I worked for a Catholic university for a couple of years and quite a few of the faculty and administration were gay—and so were a number of students that worked for me—and throughout the student body, I imagine. Was it openly discussed and acknowledged? Not really, with the exception of a couple of students who were in the…,exploratory phase of their development. In general, sex wasn’t really talked about. Doesn’t mean it did not happen.

It is my understanding that many non-Catholic Christians in America don't consider Catholics to be Christians.

 

[Metaphor]

Quote from the publication - "The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation’s mission is to catalyze and accelerate the development of quality Christ-centered K-12 education so that families and culture flourish."

Right. So what?