TRENTON, NJ – The administration of Governor Phil Murphy has sent a clear warning to school districts who want to adopt similar parental rights policies such as the ones recently passed in Middletown and Matawan.
Don’t do it.
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and Acting Department of Education (DOE) Commissioner Dr. Angelica Allen-McMillan have jointly released a statement warning school districts about similar actions.
The state is currently suing school districts that implemented policies that would require to notify the district if their child requests a gender reclassification.
The letter was aimed at students, parents, schools, school boards, educators, and the public regarding efforts to address bias and hate in educational settings, the administration claimed.
The statement acknowledges that many schools in New Jersey have taken proactive measures by implementing anti-bias initiatives, policies, and curricula that aim to recognize and value the identities and experiences of students from historically excluded communities. These initiatives are consistent with the objectives of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), which seeks to prevent and eliminate discrimination.
The Division on Civil Rights (DCR) and DOE encourage all schools, school boards, and administrators in the state to continue developing and implementing such initiatives to counter bias effectively.
The joint statement emphasized the importance of maintaining inclusive environments within schools. This includes displaying inclusive markers, flags, and symbols in and around school buildings, providing access to diverse literature representing a variety of experiences and identities, and adhering to the state’s anti-bias curricula requirements related to race, gender, LGBTQIA+ issues, disability, and diversity.
While the LAD promotes inclusivity and non-discrimination, the OAG and DOE say some school boards and legislators in New Jersey, as well as across the country, have proposed measures that could restrict classroom discussions and staff training about race, racism, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. In addition, there have been attempts to remove symbols expressing support for historically excluded groups or ban books by and about people of color and LGBTQIA+ individuals.
The joint statement warned that the LAD explicitly prohibits schools from adopting policies or practices that discriminate against students or staff based on protected characteristics, regardless of intent. Such policies may also be in violation of the LAD when they create a hostile environment based on any protected characteristic.
The guidance clarifies that discriminatory policies or practices may not always be overt but can be masked under the guise of neutrality.
For instance, a policy banning all flags and symbolic speech could be discriminatory if its intent is to oppose or exclude certain groups protected by the LAD.
A school district may also be in violation of the LAD if it applies a facially neutral policy in a discriminatory manner, selectively targeting specific groups.
In this case, districts are being sued because they are requiring parental notifications of actions that occur in school.