Discussion Post - Civil Rights

In his article, "A Bathroom of One’s Own?", Peter Schuck offers his opinion on how the government should have handled transgender bathroom use (the issue really branches out to all situations in which discrimination to transgender students may occur in schools, and subsequently all public restrooms). The letter he mentions was of the "Dear Collegue" sort where he feels the government has skirted its responsibility to first request public opinion, and second, to give the public the opportunity to appeal any decision on making a rule.

First of all, the letter itself only applies to schools who receive Title IX funding. Second, the letter states clearly in the second paragraph of the first page (where most readers would arguably be offering their greatest attention) that "this letter is significant guidance." And that "This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations." This states very clearly that no additional law has been created and that this letter is simply advisory in nature. Not only does this clarify that no new rules have been drafted, but, as an attachment to Title IX agreements, implies only that federal funding will withheld from any school who does not comply with these guidelines. Since this letter only applies to schools under Title IX, this could scarcely be considered a new law or public rule to be enforced. I feel Schuck is overzealous in his implication that the administration is trying "to sidestep [the] requirement" to present this "rule change" to the public as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.


Third, it is my opinion that our current public could scarcely be depended upon to come to any conflict-free resolution to such a conflicted issue. Spending five minutes on any social media page would nullify any such reasoning.


I suspect that Schuck's argument, while valid, has little to do with this "significant guidance", his proposed antagonist.