Not much to cheer about - controversial case of Hempstead, Texas school board change of policy after board was threatened with loss of federal funds because it dismissed pregnant high school students

National Review, Nov 29, 1993 by Jack Chambers

THE folks in Hempstead, Texas, know what it's like to be outmatched. After all, the highschool football team has just completed its season with an 0-10 record. And, now, the entire town has been humiliated, not in a gridiron battle, but in a fight with big government over who controls local schools.

The problem began when cheerleaders at Hempstead High started engaging in other extracurricular activities besides cheerleading. Earlier this year, four of the 16 girls admitted to being pregnant. In September, the four girls were dismissed from the squad after the school board approved a policy forbidding pregnant students to hold elective office. The board expressed concerns about health risks to the girls, and pointed out that unwed parents were not exactly good models for other students.

Debate over the policy took a new turn when one of the cheerleaders, who had an abortion, was told she could return (an invitation she has so far declined). Many pointed out that this sent the message that abortion solves problems. There was also disagreement about how to discipline the fathers-to-be.

But what really riled many of the 3,555 citizens of the town, located fifty miles northwest of Houston, was being told that federal regulations might prevent them from deciding the matter for themselves. Representatives of NOW and the ACLU informed the Hempstead school board that its policy violated Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments.

This federal statute, which triggered the well-publicized Grove City case a few years back, prohibits any school which receives federal funds from discriminating against women. It turns out, though, that Title IX also prohibits discrimination against any person "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or recovery there from "It also states that disabilities related to pregnancy must be dealt with just like any other disabling physical condition.

Apparently, a pregnant girl can be excluded from participation in a school activity only at the point when she is considered far enough along in her pregnancy to be "disabled." (Since many states, including Texas, allow females to play high-school football, one wonders how much a middle linebacker's womb would have to expand before a coach could pull her from the lineup.)

Hannah Riddering, Education Task Force chairman of Texas NOW, filed a formal complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Education. Miss Riddering criticizes school districts that "punish" unwed parents instead of focusing on pregnancy prevention. Not surprisingly, she advocates comprehensive sex education as a necessary element in such a prevention program. She sees' no redeeming value in restricting the activities of students who become unwed parents.

After hearing of the challenge by NOW, the school board announced it would review the policy. In what would later prove to be an ominous statement, board president Betty Vines said, "It may turn out that our hands are tied in this. We are a small district. We are not rich enough to fight the 'deep pockets' from the outside, and it would not be in the best interest of our taxpayers te engage in that kind of battle."

The school beard asked for an opinion from its attorney, John Fleming of Austin, and he warned them that the pregnancy policy did, indeed, appear to violate federal law. Fleming says that many trustees were shocked to learn of Title IX, which he describes as an effort "to micromanage local school districts."

On November 1, following a heated public hearing, the board reversed its policy--though not its position. It passed a resolution that stated "the Federal Government is wrong in robbing local communities of the power to deal with" their own problems, and added that the school beard "has fought hard for values that are held by a majority of the citizens of the community, and would continue to fight if it had the financial wherewithal."

Fleming says that the board was "simply outgunned." In addition to facing the potentially crippling legal fees entailed by a lawsuit, the school district could have lost federal financial assistance. Furthermore, in such cases, civil prosecution by the Justice Department could result in even stiffer penalties, according to Jeanette Lim, director of policy enforcement in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Education.

Stephame Wild, editor of the Waller County News Citizen, the local weekly, agrees that being threatened with the loss of federal funding was what convinced the board to change its policy. When NOW's Hannah Riddering was asked if she had expected the Hempstead school board to be intimidated by the possible loss of federal funding, she said, "I was banking on it."

Apparently, some people haven't yet caught on that there are strings attached to the federal dollars sent to towns like Hempstead. For instance, the National PTA's 1992-93 brochure on legislative policies says the group supports increased "federal appropriations" for "child-related programs." Yet, the PTA says it also favors "maximum state and local control" of education.