������Ƶ

March 10 marked the first crossover deadline at the Hawaii Legislature. This deadline is when all House bills that have passed third reading “cross over” to the Senate, and vice versa.

One of the bills that has passed out of the House and now goes to the Senate for consideration is .

The bill has two key components — it requires the Department of Education to provide “comprehensive training for teachers and educational officers on sexual health topics that include positive and accurate representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, other sexual orientations and gender identities, persons of color, and disability communities to destigmatize and promote sexual health.”

It also “requires sexual health education programs to include similar sexual health topics to destigmatize and promote sexual health.”

If the Senate passes the bill and Gov. David Ige signs it into law, it will not only be an important public policy achievement but will also be an explicit codification by our Legislature of what is already required under federal and state law — equity in sexual health education.

As stated in , “existing sexual education standards within secondary schools in the State are not providing students with the knowledge and tools necessary to make responsible, informed, and empowered choices about their sexuality, gender, relationships, and sexual and reproductive health … Comprehensive sex education that covers forms of sexual expression, healthy sexual and non-sexual relationships, diverse identities across gender and culture, sexual orientation, and consent is vital to ensuring that students feel safe and empowered to learn, ask questions, and make positive choices for themselves.”

In its written testimony, the Department of Health reported the positive effects comprehensive sexual education can have on reducing stigmatization for LGBTQ students. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities similarly testified how comprehensive sexual education can also be used to combat stigmatization of students with disabilities.

HB 1697 stands in stark contrast with , which has come to be known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

That bill prohibits discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools and would reinforce the stigmatization of LGBTQ students and families.

Under federal law, Title IX prohibits discrimination in education “on the basis of sex.” The landmark legislation was authored by our own late-Congresswoman Patsy Mink and celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. It states:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 similarly prohibits discrimination in employment “because of” an individual’s sex. In , the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination necessarily encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Using the court’s interpretation in Bostock, Title IX also includes sexual orientation and gender identity within its protections. A sex education program that does not provide the equity sought in HB 1697 would violate Title IX by denying its benefits to queer students.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated public schools, is also relevant here.

In that case, as noted by attorney Chan Tov McNamarah in his law review article, ” the court “found that Black students were denied equal benefits of educational opportunities because of segregation’s psychological impact.

By separating students, segregation imposed “a feeling of inferiority as to [African American students’] status in the community that may affect the hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone … these feelings of inferiority affected Black students’ motivation to learn, and therefore impaired “the educational and mental development of negro children … depriv(ing) them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial(ly) integrated school system.”

The exclusion of “positive and accurate representations” of LGBTQ students in sexual health programs similarly has a negative psychological impact on queer students, and is thus, similarly, a denial of benefits of educational opportunity.

Destigmatization, then, is not just a worthy public policy goal, but a federal requirement under Title IX.

HB 1697 also fulfills the promise of equity in our state constitution. Article I, Section 3 states “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State on account of sex.”

HB 1697 stands in stark contrast with Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

Section 5 states “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of the person’s civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of … sex.”

Again, using the Supreme Court’s interpretation, these constitutional provisions include sexual orientation and gender identity within the scope of their protections.

And for students with disabilities, Section 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, would seemingly require schools to combat disability stigmatization, which HB 1697 provides the resources to do.

In in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, State Representative Bob McDermott was quoted referring to accurate sexual-health information for LGBTQ youth as “bizarro stuff that fringe people do” and “crap.”

He suggested that while cisgender, heterosexual students receive sexual health education in school, queer youth should talk to their doctors or outside organizations like Planned Parenthood. His homophobic comments aside, this unequal treatment would be a direct violation of Title IX and the Hawaii State Constitution.

McDermott’s harmful comments only further demonstrate the prevalence of continued stigmatization of queer individuals. Rather than let such bigotry lead us to despair, it should be taken as a rallying cry for the critical need to pass HB 1697, and provide the resources the DOE needs for compliance with existing federal and state law.