An Open Letter to California Lawmakers about Restricting Educational Choice

Dear Lawmaker,

Today as I read in CalMatters that state lawmakers have introduced an amended budget bill that would require schools to offer independent study programs, it occurred to me that Independent Study is a particularly important issue for LGBTQ+ students. I am writing to urge you to keep our at-risk students in mind when you consider how to vote on educational issues.

Although we all hope that our students would be able to attend the school of their choice, sometimes this simply isn’t possible. Especially at sensitive times such as when they first come out, when they socially transition, and when they are going through medical transitions, transgender students often choose to transfer to Independent Study (IS), either permanently or on a short-term basis.

As you may have noticed, IS programs are under fire from California lawmakers. Starting with 2019’s ill-timed AB 1505/7 bills that restricted IS charter schools right before a pandemic, continuing with AB 1316 (which thankfully didn’t reach the governor’s desk), and now with Gov. Newsom pushing further restrictions in his rewrite of Independent Study law, transgender and other at-risk students are facing the clear possibility that they will not be allowed to seek a fair, free, and appropriate education.

The fact is that in-person, full-time schooling does not work for some students, and it is directly harmful for some. And the students that are most harmed by mandatory in-person learning are those who are the most vulnerable. Even restrictions like requiring mandatory daily contact with teachers places an undue burden on students who live in remote places, who are medically fragile, or who choose to homeschool in the real world, free of the narrow restrictions imposed by computer-based learning.

At different points during my children’s educations, we chose to homeschool. We were so lucky to live in Santa Cruz County, where we had our choice of IS programs. My students were full-time public school students while also getting an appropriate education. Both of them are now in college, one at a UC, the other at a small private college. They had their choice of colleges that suit their needs, just as they had their choice of K-12 education that suited their needs.

I beg you to keep our at-risk students in mind when you vote on educational matters. Restricting independent study, whether it’s through a district school or a charter school, is discriminatory and wrong. So many students are saved by that time at home, and go on to happy, healthy, productive adult lives. Furthermore, allowing IS programs to offer appropriate services to homeschoolers keeps those families in the public school system, a win on both sides.

Thank you again for taking time to consider the effect of your votes on at-risk, LGBTQ+ students.

Sincerely,

Susana Wessling

Transgender support: healthcare, education, and community

Recently, Rep. Jimmy Panetta reached out to PFLAG to suggest a listening session about issues faced by transgender people, their families, and their communities. The meeting took place in the back yard of the Diversity Center with representatives from PFLAG Santa Cruz County and the TransFamilies of Santa Cruz County,. We were graced with the fun sounds of a live band at the regular Friday midtown street party in the parking lot next door.

The goal of the meeting was not necessarily to solve any problems, but at least to gain a sympathetic ear and educate a politician about transgender concerns. Concerns that were discussed at length included three broad areas: healthcare policy, educational outreach, and continuing issues with access to support.

Healthcare policy

Andrea Damon of the TransFamilies of Santa Cruz County cited a statistic from the Kaiser Family Foundation that in 2020: 67% of workers who got their health coverage through their private employer were in self-funded plans. What this means is that instead of contracting with a health insurance company to provide insurance to employees, the business creates its own healthcare group. These groups are not necessarily covered by federal or state law governing health insurance.

If you’re thinking ahead, you already know what comes next: many of these plans do not follow mandates written to regulate health insurance, including health coverage for transgender care mandated under the ACA. Often, business owners don’t realize there is an exclusion, and willingly add trans care when confronted. However, other owners can legally refuse to cover trans care through their self-funded plan.

Most workers have no idea that their “health insurance” isn’t legally required to cover transgender care, and it’s only when they are in crisis with a transgender child that they face barriers to getting appropriate, timely care for their children.

“TransFamilies has worked with several families over the last year who were faced with coverage being denied through their self-funded plans,” Damon says. Results have been mixed; some employers willingly added coverage, while in others, TransFamilies had to “apply pressure” to the board of directors, ultimately convincing two such employers to add coverage.

Rep. Panetta made an enthusiastic request to know more about when self-funded insurance isn’t required to follow insurance laws/requirements, since this is an area under federal jurisdiction.

Educational outreach

Santa Cruz County boasts a robust LGBTQ+ educational program supported by the Diversity Center. This program, Triangle Speakers, will send a trained panel of speakers into any school for any event for free. A similar speakers program in Monterey County is provided by Rainbow Speakers and Friends.

However, access to these programs is spotty, to say the least. Rachel Morales-Warne, a parent advocate whose children attend SLV schools, said that the Triangle Speakers hasn’t been invited to the district in at least the last ten years.

All of the advocates agreed that even when intentions are good, the lack of teeth in the FAIR Education Act (CA Senate Bill 48, 2011) means that it’s up to individual teachers, schools, and districts to decide how inclusive and supportive they will be.

“As an educator, 50 years now, I find it so frustrating that schools are not following what the law says, what we expected them to be doing,” said Lynn J. Walton, retired math teacher and PFLAG SCC Executive Board member. “There are no teeth in it. A lot of teachers have good intentions, but they don’t have the tools to go to the next step. We need to train our teachers so there’s harder conversations.”

Even in “liberal Santa Cruz County,” the treatment of LGBTQ+ students, including bullying, intimidation, misgendering/naming, and shaming, is common. The County Office of Education’s focus on equity in the coming school year, advocates say, is unlikely to make a substantive difference in the everyday experiences of queer kids in our schools if the training and support is not applied more consistently.

Access to support

Michelle Brandt and Andrea Damon (TransFamilies) offered the statistics that underpin everything that advocates do: Kids who grow up in families that support and affirm their gender have wildly better outcomes than kids who don’t.

“Having an affirming, accepting family is the number one indicator for a young person’s mental health, so that’s a big part of what we all do,” Andrea Damon explained. “PFLAG, TransFamiies, and the Diversity Center: for the kids—through the parents but for the kids.”

But support is applied unequally and sometimes it feels like parents have to keep refighting battles that had already been fought by a previous parent.

“You get tired and think, I can’t do this anymore,” Michelle Brandt says.

Rachel Morales-Warne responded more colorfully. “In our house, pardon my language, but I’m like, We’re fuckin’ still doing this?”

Neal Savage, also a PFLAG Santa Cruz board member, pointed out that the way to reach parents in the past doesn’t suit today’s parent population. “When you start expanding the population into Latinx and any kids who are in foster care, those families and those kids aren’t getting help. The number of families that can afford to go someplace on a Tuesday night for a meeting has gotten very small, given geography, money, two jobs. The PFLAG model from 30 years ago is in some ways a middle-class luxury.”

Morales-Warne agrees. “I talk to a cousin’s friend of a cousin because I have a child, because they can’t afford to go to these meetings or they don’t feel comfortable. It’s not necessarily a safe space to live in. I think some of the biggest obstacles are education and language. Not just language as in bilingual language, but the language around what it means to be nonbinary or trans or queer or gay or pan.”

Some takeaways

Rep. Panetta’s job is federal, which informs the areas where he is able to exert influence. Listening to the advocates at the meeting, he responded, “You see the continued need for the resources that are so necessary.” He shared his memories of a powerful meeting the week before about LGBTQ+ experiences moderated by our local State Senator John Laird and hosted by the Diversity Center.

It’s clear that transgender children and adults will benefit from a more focused, united push for understanding, inclusion, and legal protection.

Resources

Are you suffering from outrage addiction, my friend?

I am a strong curator of my social media feed. When people I follow post back-to-back ugliness, I unfollow them. I’ve read the research and I know that a steady peek into the ugliest parts of their souls is not good for my mental health.

But then the 2020 election happened, and everyone was outraged. Conservatives were outraged, liberals were outraged, middle-of-the-road why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along people were outraged. We became a culture of outrage. Unlike some people I know, I didn’t leave social media, but I definitely limited my engagement.

There was a palpable drop-off in outrage after Biden’s inauguration. Most people not on the fringes moved on. But some of the people I know seemed, for lack of a better word, stuck in outrage. Outrage had become their drug of choice, and they simply couldn’t stop.

I started unfollowing people whose feeds were stuck in pointless outrage. In a few cases I attempted to post moderating comments, but the ugliness of the responses gave me pause. I decided I needed to calm my own brain and I unfollowed them all.

Righteous anger is not outrage

There’s a place for—and a grand tradition of—righteous anger in our culture. Righteous anger is focused and in its own way positive: its goal is to get people to sit up and take notice.

The BLM protests were initially fueled by righteous anger. And though they had been lied to and misled, a lot of right-wing voters who believed that our election was stolen were also initially inspired by righteous anger.

But I make a distinction when I use the word outrage. Outrage is a knee-jerk reaction that is unfocused and has no particular end-goal:

  • If you’re outraged by racism, you yell a lot, you riot, or you live in anger and fear.
    If you are experiencing righteous anger about racism, you take part in peaceful protests, you communicate the reality of the problem to others, and you vote.
  • If you’re outraged by voting issues, you yell a lot, you riot, or you decide not to vote because it’s pointless.
    If you are experiencing righteous anger about voting issues, you learn about how the system works, you read the data, you get involved to keep the election secure, and you vote.

This year has given us plenty of examples…

like racism

The BLM protests did a lot of good. They focused the attention of a lot of well-meaning white people in power whose attention really hadn’t been focused. People influenced by righteous anger got to work and pressured their lawmakers and their communities to do better.

But when you look at the outrage that accompanied the righteous anger, there was a fair amount of collateral damage. Property was damaged, people were harmed or killed, and lots of fundamentally decent people got really nasty in their social media feeds.

Righteous anger fueled real, positive change. Outrage fueled anger, depression, alienation.

and voting rights: on the right…

The concern over voting rights is shared by people all over the political spectrum. America without secure elections is not America, that’s clear. But on all sides of the political spectrum, you see the difference in outcomes between outrage and righteous anger.

On the right, people who listened to outrageous lies felt their outrage grow. Righteous anger would have led them to listen to conservative politicians and officials who did the research and found the facts. But the people who broke into the Capitol on January 6 were not fueled by righteous anger. Clearly, there is no logical world in which breaking windows and zip-tying Nancy Pelosi would end in a more secure vote.

There were those on the right who had, if not righteous anger, well-researched concerns. And you may have heard their voices if you were reading the mainstream press. But right-wing media feeds on outrage at this particular time, so that’s what most conservatives heard (and continue to hear). Conservatives who actually understand election security seem to be screaming into a void.

…and the left

The left wasn’t immune to voting rights outrage. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard—and saw in my social media feed in the last year—people saying things like “all politicians are the same so my vote isn’t important” or “the party has the vote rigged.” My observation is that this attitude is more common in younger adults, but there may be other factors than youth. Lack of interest in or understanding of the political process is probably also a factor. Although this may not feel like outrage, this attitude is often accompanied by outrage responses to particular triggering topics such as immigration. The same people who rail against Democrats being “as bad as Republicans” generally don’t take the positive steps that result from righteous anger. They just get pissed off and alienated.

I’ve had to turn off feeds from liberal friends because now that they got what they wanted, they are continuing to bang their nasty words against that wall of outrage. Their hatred of any politician who disagrees on policy is intense, immediately writing them off as “racist” or “in the pocket of corporations” if they don’t agree on the best way to solve a problem.

How are you feeling?

I’m worried about you, friends who are still fueled by outrage. I did turn you off, it’s true, but I think of you and hope that you will be able to step off the outrage machine. It’s not good for your health or for our society.

I believe that we need lots of righteous anger. We have so many difficult problems to address in this country, and so little agreement on how to address them (and sometimes, so little agreement as to whether there’s a problem at all).

But I’d like to see the smart, fun, creative, and energetic people around me step back and assess whether their righteous anger is giving them the energy they need to solve problems, or if they’re allowing their outrage to make them part of a problem.

The Final Snub Says it All

The smallest snub can be the biggest gesture.

This is the role of the First Lady, to welcome the new one with grace and humility.

Newspapers report that Melania Trump has not reached out to Jill Biden to welcome her to her new home. Now, I suppose this isn’t surprising. Her husband has never admitted that he lost the election.

It may not be surprising, but it is deeply shocking. No matter what sorts of actions American presidents have taken on the national stage, their wives have had one job and one job only: to be gracious. 

First ladies have taken on many roles, from Jackie Kennedy’s promotion of the arts to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to solve our healthcare dilemma. But no matter what else they did, first ladies knowingly signed on to the job of being everyone’s First Lady. Their job has been to humanize their husbands, take over the care and nurture of the White House, make everyone feel at home in their home, and then pass the job on.

No American first lady has gone into the job thinking that she was moving into a permanent home. They knew that their part in the history of this country was a gender-determined role as homemaker, peace maker, she who keeps up the public face.

I’m willing to overlook all the other nasty gossip that came out about Melania Trump (though the recordings are a little hard to wipe from my memory), but this last gesture is a step too far. If the Senate doesn’t convict Trump of inciting sedition, they at least could convict him of having exceedingly bad taste in his [temporary] life partners.

The gossips say that Melania cried on election night, 2016. They say she didn’t cry tears of joy for her husband. She cried, I can only guess based on her subsequent actions, because she was actually going to have to extend grace to others. The world had always bent to its knees in front of her, and now she was going to have to do a little bending.

Apparently, even that was too much.

Women’s liberation is [almost] complete

Musing about Melania Trump leads me to look wider into the society of Republican women. I was raised in a conservative town and I know the unwritten code that conservative women follow. These women knew their place and they knew their role. They were the nurturers of children, the keepers of home, the supporters of their husbands, and sometimes, the movers and shakers of charity and social good in their communities.

Conservative women still love to dis feminism, but it’s clear that they have learned its lessons. Just look at the recent Capitol riots. Women can act just like men? The zip-tie guy’s mom went in to cause mayhem at his side. Women don’t have to be sweet and perfect? It was a woman who walked off with a computer from Nancy Pelosi’s office. Women should dress pretty? The women in that mob were almost indistinguishable from the men, dressed in t-shirts promoting hatred and division, red caps to hide anything they might have done to their hair that morning, even military gear.

Women used to talk sweet even when they were spewing the rawest hatred. No more. Kimberly Guilfoyle’s GOP convention speech? Well, I’ll just leave it at that.

Like it or not, the role of the First Lady is to be nurturer, keeper of the house, paragon of graciousness.

The people who talk tradition trash tradition

So I circle back to Melania and then all the incredible breakage of norms perpetrated recently by Republicans. I can’t help but think that we are in a children’s story about Backwards World, where you wake up and everything you used to experience has been turned around.

In my childhood, it was the left screaming bloody murder at the establishment. It was post-hippie liberated women who took it on themselves to dress and act however they wanted. Conservatives were…conservative. They didn’t want change. Heck, the women had not even changed their hairstyles since 1958.

I can’t imagine those people I grew up with making any apologies for a band of hoodlums that entered the Capitol building and laid waste to it.

The Republican party is not the conservative party anymore. They don’t want to conserve the earth for their children. They don’t want to conserve decorum in our government. They don’t want to conserve the proper operation of our society.

“Whatever it is, I’m against it,” indeed.

As soon as the Capitol dust settled, they were back to using the word “unity,” as if they understood the term in the slightest. For years, the Republican party has gained power through insinuation, fear, and lies. You can say this about Trump, he does sometimes tell it like it is. He’s the one who said out loud that Republicans can’t win without voter suppression.

Republicans have realized that true conservatism has died a silent death. While Reagan courted evangelicals and Gingrich courted revolutionaries, the true conservatives became truly outnumbered in their party.

Republicans trash tradition because they are no longer conservative. They are liberal in the most general sense of the word: They want change. And the change they want is to do away with everything that has held this country together. They are against compromise. They are against fair representation. They are against loving their neighbors.

They are even against welcoming a new First Family into the White House. 

Really, has it come to this? 

I find myself inexplicably shocked and saddened by Melania not welcoming Jill into the home that the voters gave to her to keep and protect. It’s weird, because I think this whole First Lady thing is awkwardly archaic. I simply don’t believe that the role should exist. And in fact, I don’t really believe that the presidency, as it is currently defined, should exist either. But that’s the topic for another essay.

This essay is about sadness. The sadness of knowing that all across America, there are women who approve of Melania Trump’s behavior. They are readying themselves to snub their own neighbors. Maybe they will look across the aisle at a recently divorced mom and decide that her kids can’t play with theirs. Or they’ll look at the charity work they do and wonder if it’s beneath them, the way that such work is clearly beneath Melania Trump.

The fabric of conservatism is now frayed. Conservatism used to be a strong wall that liberals had to push against, thus strengthening both the left and the entire system as a whole. But now, instead of pushing back against tradition and conservative policy, liberals are pushing back against an angry, disillusioned mob who thought that the Trumps would pull them up by their bootstraps. 

Instead, the Trumps have pulled their followers down into the gilded muck where they have spent their lives, wrestling with the slick-skinned demons of their own creation.

It’s a made for TV moment, for sure.

Now available