For many people in the Civil Rights Era, Dr. King exemplified an old guard in the Movement. He differed, for example, from the younger, more militant voices of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) who (despite the name) were not strict adherents to King’s brand of non-violent direct action.
These young people wanted to move faster toward solutions—they had ideas to share and didn’t want anyone shushing them. They intended to use any means they felt necessary to achieve their goals.
But in an exercise of brilliant servant leadership, King took time to listen to young people and eventually wove their beliefs into his speeches, sermons, and oratory, thereby also ensuring that a place remained for them in the Movement. And I’m guessing their radicalism, as much as anyone, helped him articulate just why African Americans couldn’t afford to wait, which would later become the title of one of his most renowned books.
In various speeches and interviews, King shared portions of his listening sessions. He referenced the “marvelous new militancy” of angry young men he’d met in northern cities, connecting the dots that wound up the highways from Black people in the South who couldn’t vote to Black people in the North who seemingly had nothing for which to vote.
A photo of young Birmingham protesters being lashed by water cannons hangs on my office wall. During that campaign, King had to be convinced to abandon his own paternalism and fears to allow young people to participate. He eventually embraced them as partners—as well as the very people for whom he and many people in the movement wanted to leave a better world.
Today, it’s the radical vision of the younger generation that often pulls older ones out of our weary resignation – often we must be reminded what is possible and who it is we continue to show up for: all of us.
Date
Monday, January 16, 2023 - 10:00pm
Featured image
Show featured image
Hide banner image
Related issues
Racial Justice
Show related content
Tweet Text
[node:title]
Type
Menu parent dynamic listing
Show PDF in viewer on page
Style
Standard with sidebar
Show list numbers
We’re looking back on our work to create a more perfect union in Kansas – beyond any one person, party, or side.
In 2022, we…
…KEPT OUR GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENT.
In an ongoing and needlessly prolonged process, we won a decisive victory in July when the Kansas Court of Appeals found Secretary of State Scott Schwab violated public records law when he had removed functionality for a voting records report.
The saga began shortly after the 2018 election when our client Davis Hammet, founder and president of the voter advocacy organization Loud Light, realized a startling number of provisional ballots had been rejected. He filed a Kansas Open Records Act request so his organization could empower Kansans to cure outstanding issues with their ballots.
The Secretary of State ignored the request, and in June of 2020, we sued in the first Hammet v. Schwab case of the year. In July, a district court decided in our favor, compelling the Secretary to provide the requested documents.
Following the decision, Sec. Schwab requested that the database vendor revoke his access to the provisional ballot report, then responded to Mr. Hammet most recent request that his office was unable to provide these records. We were forced to sue (and win) again in our second Hammet v. Schwab case in 2020.
The case was an intersection of government transparency, accountability and voter empowerment – all of which are fundamental to a functioning and strong democracy. Clearly, government agencies should be working to make records more transparent, rather than less.
…CONFRONTED UNFAIR MAPS.
Gerrymandering has been a dirty political trick for well over a century, but its pervasive use in our country in recent years may be more destructive than ever. Under the guise of a fabricated need to break up Johnson and Wyandotte Counties, Kansas legislators leveraged this anti-democratic tactic to the Free State in 2022.
We won a decisive victory in the district court in our challenge to Kansas redistricting, where we showcased the racial discrimination baked into the politically calculated Ad Astra map that systematically and surgically broke up communities of interest to dilute their voice. Our expert witnesses used computer models to show that, given the requirements of a redistricted map, the politician’s map was as extreme and calculated as possible.
Unfortunately, the Kansas Supreme Court overruled the district court by a narrow 5-4 vote, and the racially gerrymandered map was allowed to take effect.
The ruling set a standard for evaluating claims of intentional race discrimination that is contrary to legal precedent and inconsistent with numerous cases interpreting the federal Equal Protection Clause. Kansans would be precluded from ever bringing a case alleging intentional discrimination in the drawing of maps. This result is contrary to the entire purpose of the protections provided by the Equal Protection Clause and, if uncorrected, grants license to the Kansas legislature to intentionally discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities. With our partners last month, we petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to correct this grave legal error.
…MADE HISTORY IN THE FIGHT FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.
In 2022 one of our worst fears came true: the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to end federal protections for abortion rights and reproductive freedom, abruptly overturning decades of precedent.
The ACLU was paramount in having these rights recognized 50 years ago through Roe v. Wade, so it was gutting to see these protections discarded and to witness how the 2022 Bostock decision recklessly put pregnant people across the country in danger.
In Kansas, a 2019 state Supreme Court decision in Hodes v. Nauser found bodily autonomy was protected under the Kansas Constitution—in response, radical politicians opted to change the Constitution itself to exclude protections for pregnant people’s healthcare by introducing a constitutional amendment for the 2020 election.
In a shifty attempt to bypass the will of the majority of Kansans, legislative leaders placed the amendment on the ballot for the August 2nd primary, during which historically lower turnout could improve the amendment’s chances of slipping through and taking effect.
Despite these political games, Kansans came out in droves to vote “no”. The August 2nd amendment not only failed -- it was resoundingly crushed by a historical 18 points. On top of protecting our rights in Kansas, the decisive margin discouraged other states from even attempting this radical move and shifted national understanding of where voters really stand on the issue. The eyes of the world were on Kansas, and we said in no uncertain terms, across all partisan lines, that we stand for civil liberties.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE. In 2022, we stepped forward in other fights.
WE SHOWED UP FOR…
…KANSAS VOTERS;
Our Election Protection work continued in the historic 2022 election season, providing live, nonpartisan assistance to voters across the state with a team of attorneys and volunteers at various polls.
…FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS;
We called on the St. Marys City Commission to reverse course on its threat to reject the Pottawatomie Wabaunsee Regional Library’s lease after the library refused to remove all LGBTQ+, sexual, racial, or otherwise “socially divisive” content.
AND LGBTQ+ KANSANS;
We outlined the dangers of the Gardner Edgerton School District’s proposed policies that would violate the rights of transgender students. We also launched our LGBTQ+ Advocacy Landing Page to help empower LGBTQ+ Kansans and advocates across the state to house various resources and information, including toolkits explaining our legal rights and how to enforce them.
We also had some wins along the way in our ongoing work to challenge…
…unconstitutional wait-times for mental health evaluations;
In May, we filed a lawsuit against the Kansas Department of Aging and Disability, which runs the forensic unit at Larned State Hospital, for prolonged wait times for mental health evaluations. Some people may spend more time waiting in jail for an evaluation or treatment bed than they would face in prison if they were convicted. The long waitlist exacerbates the mental health challenges of those on the list, subjects them to prolonged punishment, and violates their Constitutional rights.
…the discriminatory gang list in Wichita;
We’re holding to account the Wichita Police Department’s discriminatory and unconstitutional “gang database,” which errantly targets people of color for profiling premised on flimsy vague criteria. In January, a court ruled that our clients indeed have standing and can continue with the case. The state statute authorizing WPD’s gang list and the department’s application have harmed residents across Wichita and Kansas, subjecting numerous people to profiling, harassment, and targeting by the department.
…and the Kansas Highway Patrol’s practice of targeting and searching drivers.
In 2020 we filed a lawsuit to end Kansas Highway Patrol’s practice of targeting out-of-state motorists and using a training technique knowns as the “Kansas Two-Step” to circumvent their constitutional protections and subject drivers to prolonged detention and canine searches.
This year in June, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s denial of summary judgement, allowing the case to proceed to the District Court of Kansas, and denying the state of Kansas’ claim that qualified immunity shielded the defendants from responsibility in the facts of the case.
As we close a historic year for civil rights and civil liberties, we’re re-committing to protecting the civil rights and liberties of all people living in Kansas. Our work in the state legislature, the courts, and local communities will continue as 2023 brings new challenges – and we’re ready.
If you’re ready, too: find out how you can join the movement and take action in 2023 with us for the issues you care about.
Date
Tuesday, December 27, 2022 - 1:00pm
Featured image
Show featured image
Hide banner image
Related issues
Voting Rights
The First Amendment
Reproductive Freedom
Racial Justice
LGBTQ+ Rights
Show related content
Tweet Text
[node:title]
Type
Menu parent dynamic listing
Show PDF in viewer on page
Style
Standard with sidebar
Show list numbers
Author
Jesse Kielman
Despite clear and adamant pushback from its own students, the Gardner Edgerton school board adopted a harmful and discriminatory policy that infringes on the rights of transgender students in USD 231 schools this week, just before Election Day.1 Among other things, the policy bans trans students from playing sports and using the restroom or facilities that align with their gender.
The board adopted this policy after five months of debate—during which it heard immense pushback from USD 231 students, who showed up at multiple board meetings to testify that they did not want the policy and that it would harm them or their trans classmates.
The day after the board adopted the policy, Kansans voted Gov. Laura Kelly back in office—signaling that, like the USD 231 students, a majority of Kansans do not want to support discriminatory, anti-trans policy. In fact, Kansans just reelected a governor who has consistently vetoed anti-trans legislation and who committed to continuing to do so in her next term.
The research is clear: introducing, debating, and adopting anti-trans policies negatively impacts the mental health of trans youth in the community.2 In fact, when discriminatory facilities policies like the one Gardner Edgerton just passed are adopted, one in three transgender students report attempting suicide in the year following that policy adoption.3 And schools that adopt these anti-trans policies have higher instances of anti-LGBTQ+ bullying and harassment than schools with LGBTQ+ inclusive policies.4
These discriminatory policies also impact the physical health and well-being of students—placing trans students at higher risk of health issues like bladder infections and causing 45% of LGBTQ+ students to report avoiding the restroom or locker room because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable.5 Anti-trans sports bans also lead to less participation in girls’ sports overall and an increase in harmful gender policing strategies.6
None of this was enough for the Gardner Edgerton school board to change course.
The ACLU of Kansas has heard from multiple families in the Gardner Edgerton district with trans students who have already been harmed by this policy and the community debates surrounding it. These families have students whose health, well-being, and ability to participate at school have been negatively impacted, and they are deeply concerned about the continued harm that will come now that the policy has officially been adopted.
Discriminatory policies like this are rooted in prejudice and unfounded fears about trans students. But in reality, there are thousands of trans students across the country using multi-use restrooms that align with their gender without any issues, and there is no evidence to support claims that transgender athletes have any sort of competitive advantage over cisgender athletes.
Aside from the clear physical and mental harm the Gardner Edgerton policy will cause, it is also a discriminatory policy that violates students’ federal and constitutional rights. In fact, a Virginia school district that adopted a similar policy—banning trans students from using the restroom that aligned with their gender—was sued and the federal appellate court said that this kind of discriminatory policy violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.7 And courts that have considered anti-trans sports bans have held that Title IX prohibits districts from adopting these types of discriminatory policies.8
Moreover, the United States Department of Education recently proposed new Title IX regulations which make clear that trans students’ rights are protected under federal antidiscrimination law—and policies like the one adopted by Gardner Edgerton’s school board infringe on those rights.9 These regulations would protect the rights of trans students to both use the restroom and play sports that align with their gender—both things that the Gardner Edgerton policy now bans.
All students deserve to feel safe and supported at school. The ACLU of Kansas wants trans students to know that we stand with them and will continue to advocate for their rights. We will work to change the narrative in Kansas around trans people—pushing back against hate and prejudice and highlighting the lived experiences of trans Kansans, in our schools and across our state.
While there may be some who wish to harm and discriminate against trans people in our state, those voices are in the minority. And while folks have wedged trans people into a political debate, this Gardner Edgerton policy reaches across party lines and challenges core Kansas values—values like treating everyone with respect, dignity, and fairness, protecting the youth in our state, and ensuring our public schools provide a safe and welcoming environment for all students to learn and grow in.
If these are values you share, you must be ready to challenge those in power when they take action to harm trans people in our state—like the Gardner Edgerton school board did this week.
The ACLU of Kansas is dedicated to protecting the civil rights of all Kansans—including trans students in our schools. We welcome you to join us in this fight. You can sign up to be involved in our LGBTQ+ advocacy work going forward by clicking here.
1 https://go.boarddocs.com/ks/usd231/Board.nsf/Public
2 https://socwel.ku.edu/center-lgbtq-research-advocacy-resources
3 See Myesha Price-Feeney, et al., Impact of Bathroom Discrimination on Mental Health of Transgender and Non-Binary Youth, Journal of Adolescent Health (Dec. 4, 2020), https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30653-4/fulltext.
4 See 2021 National School Climate Survey, GLSEN, https://www.glsen.org/research/2021-national-school-climate-survey.
5 Id.; Tanya Albert Henry, Exclusionary Bathroom Policies Harm Transgender Students, American Medical Association, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/exclusionary-ba... Julie Compton, Trans Students Face ‘Detrimental’ Health Effects Without Fed Protection, NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/without-federal-protections-tran...
6 https://socwel.ku.edu/center-lgbtq-research-advocacy-resources
7 See https://www.aclu.org/cases/grimm-v-gloucester-county-school-board.
8 https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/the-coordinated-attack-on-trans-s...
9 Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, https:www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-07-12/pdf/2022-13734.pdf.
Date
Friday, November 11, 2022 - 10:15am
Featured image
Show featured image
Hide banner image
Related issues
LGBTQ+ Rights
Show related content
Tweet Text
[node:title]
Type
Menu parent dynamic listing
Show PDF in viewer on page
Style
Standard with sidebar
Show list numbers
Author
D.C. Hiegert
Pages
