Liz Barker Demands Answers for a Concerned and Wary Community
The Sarasota School Board Member asks: "Why are we doing this now? Who asked for it?" The revised Student Code of Conduct raises a justified apprehension.
When politics get involved, one can forget that we are all on the same team. Citizens want the betterment for not just some Americans, but all who call the United States home. No more tax cuts for the billionaires, please; and let our hard-working, tax-paying immigrants live out the American dream.
In education, we want every student to have the same opportunities to learn - without going to a classroom hungry or the fear of being bullied or harassed. Public education is one of the greatest cornerstones of democracy. It bestows our nation with knowledgeable open minds and equitable freedoms that sustain its very existence.
This is why public education advocates in Sarasota (Florida) are so driven to make sure that every child is given the same consideration of safety from bullying, harassment and discrimination on school grounds under the district’s Student Code of Conduct. It is unfathomable that fear (or the blame) of a political climate would win out over any student’s best interest. Yet, that seemed to be where the district was headed in leaving out critical and specific wording in the newly-revised code.
The public caught this appalling revision, that some believed bordered on a nefarious agenda that would harm queer and transgender staff and students. With apologies and culpability from the superintendent of schools, it was immediately pulled from consideration at a May 20 board meeting.
A new revision was presented at the June 17 school board work session by the legal counsel for the Sarasota School board, Patrick Duggan, as well as the Supervisor of Government Affairs, Chris Parenteau. Parenteau cited that the lack of specific wording provides even more protections than Federal guidelines. His enthusiasm wasn’t contagious, but rather unsettling and suspect.
It is important to note that no one wants a child discriminated against. There are just different avenues to make sure that guidelines / codes have real teeth in them. Taxpayers demand facts and it took school board member Liz Barker to uncover any pitch or facade.
She took her turn behind the dais maintaining an authentic folksy manner which shoots her sky high in likeability. Yet, similar to former US Representative Katie Porter and her whiteboard, Barker comes armed with facts and questions that can’t be dismissed. She isn’t there to be liked, she’s there to fight for the students.
“These are our kids, our families, our teachers and we want it very specific for us.” - Liz Barker
“For the sake of the public, can you clarify exactly what we’re changing?” she began.
Parenteau explained that the change makes the code school district specific: “So that when we talk about violations for bullying, harassment, discrimination that it starts at the school-based level.” He went on to explain:
Nothing of a violation has to meet a federal threshold for our students to be able to have something investigated. . .Solely by being a student in our schools or staff member. . .they are protected. Regardless of what the state government or federal government says. And whether or not something rises to the level of being a federal discrimination investigation violation, it’s a violation of our school rules and our district policy for any student to be bullied, harassed or discriminated against whatsoever.”
Barker responded by thanking Parenteau and expressing appreciation for this. Since it became vilely twisted that the words diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are loathsome enough to be eliminated from institutions of learning, a student code of conduct can’t rely on Washington.
Barker countered by asking for clarity:
“To be clear, we used to have a line that read not to discriminate based on sex, gender, race and sexual orientation, gender expression and we no longer have that line. We have encompassed all of those groups, calling them all students and staff. Is that a fair assessment?”
Parenteau answered that she was correct. They removed individual classifications because the policy is all-encompassing. “Federal administrations change or state administrations change,” he explained, “and classifications get added or taken away. As we do it this way and we look down the road, we don’t want a student to feel like they are no longer valued because if someone is bullied, harassed or discriminated against, this outlines the roadmap of how that gets investigated and what courses of action to take.”
Barker asked the question that the public had expressed at the last meeting:
”Why are we doing this now? Who asked for it - and what are we hoping to get out of it, because I have done some research on other districts.”
Other Florida districts keep all wording of classifications
She began by pointing out that every district in the state must update their code of conduct before the new school year begins. In wanting to understand the recommendation of the legal team, she said: “I dug into that a little bit.”
Naming various districts that she said had a “similar politically conservative majority board and a mid-sized district”, she was unable to find any district that was making “this sort of change”. She also named neighboring districts. Parenteau turned this over to Duggan.
“I can’t speak for other districts. . .I can tell you we apply every year for federal aid about $30 million of which comes from the U.S. DOE,” he explained.
“We make assurances and representations of receiving that aid that we are in compliance with their protocols. So we’re constantly. . . to make sure we don’t lose that funding or get bogged down in a federal investigation or you know, those type of things.”
He repeated that it was his recommendation after looking at the state and federal laws to makes those changes. “It was my recommendation to make our policies as compliant as possible so we can avoid . . . negative distractions and repercussions,” he added.
Barker wasn’t done. “As a follow-up to that, there has been no new law passed requiring us to do this. Is it your interpretation of the legal landscape as it stands now? Would that be a fair assessment?”
While he agreed that there wasn’t a new law, he did explain there was a new interpretation when the new Washington administration took over. He referred to a “Dear Colleague” letter in February of this year that he explained “basically says that we are to go back to the way it was prior to the most recent administration.” He continued:
“We looked at those regulations and we decided to make these changes to make sure that our policies are consistent only with those, but also the state level. . .”
Drop Mic Moment
In a gentle soft tone, Barker asked the following: “During the first Trump administration, did our policy include sexual orientation and gender identity - or no?”
While acknowledging that his legal team was not representing the district at that time, he replied, “My understanding is that it did but that was a decision for that board at that time.”
Anyone listening would wonder: If it was compliant then, why not now?
Taking a cue from the public’s concerns, Barker pressed on: “Is there any legal reason that we cannot include categories that are not included in state and federal law? As you’re saying, this is specific to Sarasota. These are our kids, our families, our teachers and we want it very specific for us. Is there any reason why we can’t as Sarasotans provide additional protections over and above what the law requires?”
Duggan voiced his concern about how the governments would view compliance, bringing up again the worry that $30 million was at stake. “My goal is to put you in risk-adverse situations. . .We wrote policies that are consistent with what the expectation has been set for us.”
In a conclusion that combined logic and facts with raw passion, Barker stated the indisputable:
To me, this appears to be politicizing a non-political issue. And the fact that we’re sitting here discussing it is concerning to me when we have an enormous budget issue looming that we really need to be on the same page about and this is an opportunity for us to be divided and to pull into our own corners and you know um. .. it just doesn’t set us up for success in these coming budget negotiations. That’s concerning to me.
And I just don’t think fundamental rights of students should be a political issue at all and it feels like we are making it a political issue. Manufacturing an issue when one doesn’t necessarily exist or at least the rest of the state does not seem to believe that it exists.
Barker stated that she wants to hear what the other board members think and where the community lies on this issue. “I have an open heart, an open mind. But at this point in time, I have grave concerns.”
In the next Dear Bubbie: Barker expands on her stand in writing. The next Sarasota School Board meeting takes place on July 22 at 3:00pm. The work session (open to the public) is the same day at 10:00am.
Paid Subscribers of Dear Bubbie can read an upcoming review of Clooney’s documentary, Surviving Ohio State. In another Pity Party Commission meeting (subscribers only), we confess why thrift items were purchased out of sadness and respect only.
Finally, in “Too Much” - we feature a vignette on excess and overload. From the news cycle to the Bezos spectacle - turning it all off, if only temporarily.
I guess I don't really understand why this is a problem; “To be clear, we used to have a line that read not to discriminate based on sex, gender, race and sexual orientation, gender expression and we no longer have that line. We have encompassed all of those groups, calling them all students and staff. Is that a fair assessment?” // I get that they removed the specific sub-categories of students and replaced with "all students and staff." But to me, that sounds better. There are endless categories of discrimination. Obese children, disabled children , neuro-divergent, hijab-wearing, etc. If they are not named by category, does the original code of conduct cover discrimination against them? Are not sex, gender, etc. included as categories under "all students and staff?" What am I missing?