Atif Qarni, former Sec. of Education under Governor Ralph Northam, joins the show to discuss Governor Youngkin's latest model policies for how Virginia school systems should treat transgender students. He compares the policies to the 2021 policies that developed in his office under the Northam Administration--including where the new policies are lacking and the false narratives around parents' rights.

Episode Transcript

Michael Pope

I'm Michael Pope.

Thomas Bowman

I'm Tom Bowman.

Michael Pope

And this is Pod Virginia, a podcast that is taking a look at Virginia's new model policies for transgender students.

Thomas Bowman

The new model policies are designed to be a 180 from the previous model policies, which were developed when our guest was the Secretary of Education. He's joining us today to help us understand this debate and what comes next, Atif Qarni. Thanks for being back on Pod Virginia.

Atif Qarni

Thank you, Michael. Thanks for having me. And thank you, Thomas. It's great to be back on Pod Virginia. And to be with you all.

Michael Pope

Well, it's great to talk to you again. Okay, so I want to start our discussion way back in 2020. When the General Assembly passed a bill directing the Department of Education, your department at the time to develop model policies to protect transgender students. The bill was introduced by Delegate Marcus Simon and Senator Jennifer Boysko. It essentially asked the Department of Education to come up with a model policy to deal with common issues regarding transgender students. So tell us a bit about that debate. And how your department responded after Governor Northam signed?

Atif Qarni

Yeah, thank you, Michael, for that question. This was actually a governor's bill. So we have three different levels of bills; whereas the Governor's bill, or it's like agency bill, where a state agency might propose something and the Governor doesn't have to back it. But this actually came from the Governor's office as we talked to Delegate Simon, and Senator Boysko carried the bill for us. So give you the current historical context. The reason we did this is that some school divisions in the last decade have gradually, in their nondiscrimination policies, become inclusive about making a more affirming inclusive environment for LGBTQ+ students, and some in recent years have started to look at bathroom and facilities use for transgender students who had requested that accommodation. But it wasn't really scaled. So we conducted an extensive amount of research about bullying and safety concerns that students faced. That's why my office engaged in this initiative. And then, it eventually turned into a legislative action and 2020, where the two legislators carrying that bill directed one of my state agencies, the Department of Education, to develop guidelines, and we call them model policies. So guidelines for school divisions on what the state, based on research, thought would be the best practices to create a more safe and inclusive environment for transgender students.

Michael Pope

Walk us through those original model policies that your department came up with, essentially, what did they say? And what was the purpose? I mean, how would they put it together?

Atif Qarni

Yeah, we spent a good well over a year putting this together because it required a lot of research. And we looked at policies across the country to see what what what was happening and what had some good evidence based on what really worked and what did not. But the basic premise of the model policy had three components. One was prioritizing the safety of students because what our research showed was that there was a lot of bullying and physical bullying as well, in addition to verbal bullying that happened in spaces like bathrooms or locker rooms that transgender students face. And we also found that there was a really fragmented approach. So at the local school level, there was evidence where a student might approach, or their family might approach a school principal and say, "I want to use a private bathroom." And schools are generally always accommodated. But what schools were telling us also through our research is that it would help to have a framework that's more standard across the board. So they're, they're consistent. So that's why that's another reason we felt the need that we needed consistent policy across the state. So it was fair treatment, and students were treated fairly, but also, school divisions really knew and had some kind of a guide on what to do because, at times, the local school principal really struggled. So that's what our research found as we were developing it. And the last thing that we did have, because the General Assembly directed us to do this, they didn't direct us to mandate it because we don't we didn't have we don't have the constitutional authority to mandate that every school follow it or every local division follow it and adopt it. But we did have the authority to put the research base and guidance out there, which does carry a lot of weight.

Thomas Bowman

All right, well, despite the weight, about 10% of school boards adopted your model policies, but most school divisions chose to keep their existing policies in place. And, of course, a handful of conservative school boards voted to reject them altogether. What kind of reaction did your model policies get from school boards across Virginia in general?

Atif Qarni

It was a mixed reaction because there are 132 school divisions; as you said, about 10% adopted them. The rest did not adopt them because they had nothing in place. So some divisions already had something robust in place. So they didn't need to adopt anything new. Some who had an existing policy modified it and adopted some components of the model policies that we put out. Some just completely ignored it for a variety of reasons, right? Some ignored it because they had something in place, or some ignored it because they didn't want to engage in this conversation because they felt it was a tough conversation, or some, like you said, a handful of people flat-out rejected it. Keep in mind that this is also happening in the midst of a pandemic, where there are a lot of hot topics being discussed. We were talking about school reopenings, in-person versus virtual debate happening, debate or masking and store or COVID debate, where other issues happening around this time with books and instructions and teaching of history standards, and so forth. So it was a very volatile political environment. So that is actually, I think, a major reason why many school divisions were very apprehensive on how to really engage on this topic.

Michael Pope

Yeah, as you point out, many of them were apprehensive and kind of maybe didn't know what they should do in the situation. But there was a handful that we talked about that explicitly rejected them, Augusta, Bedford, Pittsylvania, Russell, and then actually raises a really interesting point, I want to make sure that we pin down here. So these model policies, I know you wanted, you know, these model policies to be implemented. However, they're really just a suggestion. Right?

Atif Qarni

They're a guideline. So we don't have I didn't have the legal authority, nor does the General Assembly or the Governor's office to mandate this across the state. Because the constitution provides local divisions and a lot of autonomy on matters like this, the only way that the nuances are right, so exactly what happens. So there are a couple of granular details within the policy; if you want to mandate those items, they have to be listed in a bill itself there, has to be passed by the General Assembly, both of the chambers, and the Governor has to sign that into law. So that component, that part never happened, all the legislation did was is that can you look at research and evidence and develop guidelines to give to the school divisions, this case with the what we did in 2021. And there's also the case of what happened recently in 2023. So you had started the podcast saying that Governor Youngkin did a 180 based on what Governor Northam had done, which is accurate. But I also want to remind folks that there is no legal requirement for a local division to adopt the 2023 policies or replace them in 2021. If they had adopted 2021, or they don't have to do anything, or they can reject, or they can fully adopt. So they it's the choice is really up to the local division on what to do.

Thomas Bowman

Let's switch gears now and talk about the Youngkin administration's model policies. What's the latest in terms of them? Like what are these policies?

Atif Qarni

So the framing is really about parents' rights and protecting dignity. And if you see the 2023 policies and you said, well, we want the way the framing is kind of misleading, where somebody is reading it, and they're saying, well, parents should be involved in their children's education. I don't think anybody would disagree with that, but if you look at it, the devil in the details is how the major differences between the two policies are one. If you're a teacher, and let's talk about pronouns, so if a child or even if the child's family fully said, hey, I want my child to be called by these pronouns, based on the teacher, classroom, teachers, personal beliefs, whether they're religious and so forth in 2021, part of the policies, we wanted to create an affirming environment that if a child says, I want to be called by this pronoun, the adult working with them should use that pronoun. That's what the 2021 policies said; in 2023 policies, the difference is that a person can reject that. So if a teacher says my religion doesn't allow me to recognize the differences and pronouns, and so forth, they can, and they don't have to respect that student's wishes are their family's wishes. So that's one major difference between the two policies. The other difference, bigger difference, which is probably the most contentious, is parental notifications in rare cases. So the 2021 policies, any rare instance where a child demonstrated that there would be significant, they're in danger at home if they were to come out to their parent or their parents found out about their identity, or if they want to use a different facility, in the school, and that there is a real threat and danger to that child. So that's where the school should work with that child and work with social services and really think through that. But there is no mandate for that school administrator or that school counselor to right away, notify the parents. So that's a big point of contention, where in this instance, 2023 policies will Governor Youngkin, the parent notification has to happen automatically, regardless of whether this child is presented as a legitimate threat at home or not.

Michael Pope

So these model policies from the Youngkin administration have some interesting history. They were initially rolled out last year in September. But then there was a delay; they hit the pause button to get feedback. Tell us a little bit about that time period. So last year, when they were proposed, there was a lot of reaction, a lot of discussion about this, and they decided to hit the pause button and get feedback. And so what has happened since that time?

Atif Qarni

Yeah, initially, when they wanted to replace it, they were doing it unilaterally. So, folks, a lot of families across the state raise concerns that you have not had engagement from different stakeholders, parents, students, educators, and so forth. So then they opened it up for public comment again, and they received thousands of comments, most of them in favor of maintaining the 2021 policies. So yes, they went through the exercise of getting feedback from across the state, but they still went ahead and moved forward with the 2023 version that they wanted anyways, which is regressive compared to the 2021 landmark version.

Thomas Bowman

Alright, so the overwhelming message the Youngkin administration got at the time was the vast majority of people want the rights of transgender students to be respected and protected. So what's your reaction to the public opinion here?

Atif Qarni

I think I think they ignored the public opinion. And in addition to ignoring public opinion, there are they are compounding on the misinformation that somehow, when we're protecting children, we're doing that by jeopardizing parents' rights; I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think there's this false narrative that's been created about parent rights and also the use of the word dignity. I think that is used in a really improper way. Because everything I did in my power and others was to really protect human rights and human dignity, so it's really troubling to see how the young administration is just, you know, using the false narrative. And I think they're really trying to get into the fears of folks who otherwise are not empathetic or just don't understand the challenges that trans students truly face in our schools. So they really are tapping into those fears, in their framing and the way they're framing it, it triggers certain things in people's minds who are basically anti-trans, or they have homophobic tendencies, and they don't really don't understand or want to understand.

Michael Pope

Well, let's get into that triggering and talk about how these policies work. So essentially, they direct the schools to make sure that students are using the facilities that match the gender the students were born with, even if that conflicts with their gender identity; as you pointed out, the new policies make it much harder for students to change their name, their pronouns. If you talk to people who support these model policies, they would say, hey, look, we're worried that schools and teachers are concealing stuff from parents. What's your reaction to that? I mean, like, that's the overwhelming framing, as you're just pointing out that it sort of triggers fears that people have. How do you address those fears? And those concerns that people have, that schools and teachers are hiding stuff from them?

Atif Qarni

I think that what I tell parents, and I've had conversations with a lot of parents, parents about this, and families, and I've had conversations with faith leaders about this as well. And I tell them that please focus on facts. It is a rare occurrence. But it does happen in a situation where it's not 100% guaranteed that the parent will be notified. But in 99.9% of the situations, parents are involved, and they're supportive of their child. But there is a rare instance where there is a serious threat to a child. So that's where the Republicans and governing Youngkin have twisted this and saying, well, we don't want to include parents in our children's education. That's not true. That's not a fact. Almost always, in the situations I looked at, the parents were included from the get-go. And it was actually the parents who engaged in school and said, hey, I really want to support my child. Can you please provide them the reasonable accommodations for their safety? It's so rare, so rare, that I found that a parent was not included in that decision. But again, the child had to demonstrate that they're a significant threat to them. I've taught students who are transgender students are part of the queer community. And there were instances where, in a couple of instances, over the years I taught, a child approached me, or they asked to approach a school counselor, and they were dealing with abuse at home. And because they didn't have an affirming environment at home. So there were those rare instances when we worked with a child and guided them to meet with the experts, the child Children Protective Services, and with the school psychologist and social worker, think through that and get parents involved and in the right way, so parents do get involved, even in these various instances. But to entertain this notion that parents are intentionally being left out of their children's lives is absurd. It's disgusting. And I think it's that type of misinformation being spread is, is really dangerous for our society, is dangerous for our schools. And this is just kind of an ongoing series of attacks that we've seen in different forums against teachers against public education.

Thomas Bowman

Yeah, I just want to chime in here and say, as a parent myself, I value the input, and I can provide my child's education. However, I also trust in the professional expertise of teachers and administrators. And their responsibility is to create a safe and inclusive, respectful environment for all of the students, including those who are transgender. And I believe in the principle of loving and respecting all of our neighbors, and I want my child's school to reflect those values, too. So while I appreciate the intent behind parents' rights, it's crucial to balance this with the rights and well-being of all the students, and unfortunately, homes are just not a safe place for many trans students, especially LGBT students, broadly. And when they're forcibly outed by their schools to their parents. It does all sorts of things that actually hurt Glenn Youngkin's other policy goals; you get kicked out of your house, which leads to homelessness, which contributes to the Fentanyl crisis because the underlying trauma pushes many people into addiction and crime. And so this is really a poor policy choice to make, especially for someone like Glenn Youngkin, who fancies himself a true believer and supposedly believes that we're all made in the image of God and that God doesn't make any mistakes. So then, how can you go and say that the trans community, students, and LGBT community aren't also made in the image of God? It's incongruent with his faith as he's enunciated it.

Atif Qarni

Thomas, I think that's beautifully put. And I think you're making a moral and human argument there. But there's also a legal argument to be made with a third component that I forgot to mention in the 2023 policies, which I think is going to be legally argued that not only do you have to include parents of the child who's seeking that accommodation if they're transgender students, but the way the policy is written in 2023 version policies is that you have to notify somehow without giving the child's name, other parents, whose child might be impacted because another child wants to use the bathroom they use or facility they use. So that has, I think, significant HIPAA violations written there. And it's also very problematic because you're also outing that child in advertent others, and other families and so forth. So that's probably it's that's something that I know that the legal experts are looking at. But it's also not being talked about that third component, the policies very troubling. So I do think that these 2023 policies were brought will receive a significant legal challenge. And for the divisions that want to adopt the 2020 policies, whether they're conservative, politically leaning, and so forth, I think the advice they will get from their insurance companies, that insurance companies that provide legal coverage will probably back out from those contracts. And the similar thing happened with the pandemic; the insurance companies say, well if you're adopting some policies about maxing, anti-masking, and so forth, we can provide you legal coverage.

Thomas Bowman

I will Since the rollout of these new bottle policies, the Virginia High School League has essentially said Thanks but no thanks. And they'll be keeping their transgender policy just as it is. So explain what's going on here with the Virginia High School league.

Atif Qarni

Sure, so we have an MOU; the state has an agreement with the Virginia High School League, which oversees sports and middle school and high schools. So not, elementary schools don't have sports yet, but middle schools and high schools do. So Virginia High School League is an external body, which is not a state-funded agency or anything like that. But it is kind of like a public body of sorts that has; there's been an agreement that they oversee the role of policies for sports. So the original Department of Education worked closely with them. So I didn't have purview over VHSL. However, there is overlap where we have to work with them because, with sports on who can participate, VHSL has probably nearly a decade they've had a policy, like other states, on the participation of transgender students because there's an appeal process where students can appeal and say, I want to participate in this sport, so they've had that for a very long time. Where there's a little bit of overlap, as with facility use and field trips like that, because there is an overlap of usage of facilities, which technically schools oversee, but it's a shared space, legally speaking. So that's why we didn't have sports. The participation in sports, people asked me well, how can we run a dressing? I'm like; we don't have any legal authority over this, so we couldn't look at sports. And the General Assembly knew that that's why they only focused on the operation side of the day-to-day operations of a school setting.

Michael Pope

So what's next here? School board members across Virginia, of course, are trying to figure out what they want to do. They're being lobbied really heavily on both sides, people that like to model policies, people that don't like to do model policies, they're all lobbying their local school boards to take action. I know that you have been hearing from school board members across Virginia; what are you telling them?

Atif Qarni

Yeah, I'm just telling them that you definitely take the opportunity to listen to your constituents. That's step one, whether you agree with them or not, because you're gonna want to give them the courtesy to listen and engage. And then, take a holistic approach and decide what is the best approach for you. Because of course, I'm biased here because the 2021 policies have my hand prints all over. Because we spent a lot of time thinking about it. So, in my opinion, that's the best version. But I understand that you can take a customized approach. So the advice I give them is to just put children first, right, and their safety first; I think the school board members have an obligation and responsibility to protect children first. But you can do that by including parents that they shouldn't. Those things should not butt heads against each other they should; I think you engage the community and have meaningful dialogue. So that's what advice I'm giving the school board members; I've done a couple of workshops with them. And thinking through that, and also trying to navigate the political nature of it. And I've also advised them to engage faith leaders because a lot of this problem is also because faith leaders are sitting on the sidelines, and they're not talking about the moral and human aspects of this. I do have a significant issue with that because Governor Youngkin or others who are there they're basically utilizing religion, and they're doing ungodly things in the name of God. And I think that This is a significant problem here where I've asked some clergy like what is it in the 2021 policies that contradict any faith, any principle of any faith, I've sat down with clergy, and I'm like, please show me one instance, where it contradicts any faith. And what it keeps boiling down to is that they just keep going back to their own biases, which are very misogynistic in nature. So it's, I think, I think the school board members can engage the faith community, and I think we have to hold the faith leaders accountable and say, why are you on the sidelines? You know, what is it about the principles that contradict anything that was done in 2021?

Thomas Bowman

Yeah, I'm glad you're saying that Secretary Qarni, because as somebody who was raised evangelical Christian and believes that no matter your conception, God is going to be bigger. Christians are commanded to like to know that nothing God created is unclean and that God has reconciled all things to himself through the Christian faith through Christ. And also, the great commandment is to love our neighbors as ourselves. That means respecting and affirming the dignity of all people, including transgender students. And if we're observing the fruit to know whether or not something is from God, something that causes this kind of pain and suffering and division, by definition, cannot be from God.

Atif Qarni

Absolutely.

Michael Pope

All right. Well, that's it for this episode of Pod Virginia.