Pitt issues responses to transgender complaints

Pitt responded this past week to a complaint filed by the Rainbow Alliance in relation to the… Pitt responded this past week to a complaint filed by the Rainbow Alliance in relation to the school’s transgender policy.

On Friday, Pitt filed a motion to dismiss the Rainbow Alliance’s complaint, which The Pitt News obtained. The complaint, which the campus LGBTQ advocacy group filed with the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations on April 25, claimed Pitt enacted “discriminatory practices relating to public accommodation” toward transgender students.

In the motion, Pitt motioned for the Rainbow Alliance’s complaint to be dismissed because it lacked “actual instances of alleged discrimination.”

“Because Complainant does not allege even a single allegedly discriminatory act or any actual harm from the alleged policy/practice, there is no case or controversy to be investigated,” the motion said.

Rainbow Alliance President Tricia Dougherty said the motion’s claims don’t take into account the larger impact Pitt’s transgender policies have on the overall campus environment.

Pitt’s transgender policy came under scrutiny when a University official spoke in front of the Anti-Discriminatory Policies committee in March to contradict what had previously been an unwritten policy, saying that Pitt defined gender based on the sex listed on the birth certificate of a person. This policy was met with outrage in the LBGTQ community, as it takes gender reassignment surgery — an expensive and invasive surgery — and judicial review for a birth certificate to be changed.

The change in policy eventually led to Dougherty filing the complaint.

“The policy itself definitely caused harm,” Dougherty said. “Students came to me feeling not safe or supported. That’s extremely harmful.”

The Rainbow Alliance has no intention to drop its suit and plans to file a response to Pitt’s motion to dismiss.

“We’re not going to stop speaking up for students just because someone filed a motion,” she said.

Seamus Johnston’s complaint

In addition to the Rainbow Alliance’s complaint, Pitt also faces a second complaint from Seamus Johnston, a 22-year-old transgender man and former Pitt Johnstown student who was expelled in January from the University after he refused to comply with University officials’ requests that he not use a men’s locker room on the Johnstown campus. Johnston filed his complaint about the University’s policy with the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations on April 16.

Prior to filing his complaint, Johnston, a former computer science major, testified before a federal judge and a federal grand jury. He said FBI agents told him he was a person of interest in the investigation of the string of bomb threats made against the University last Feburary through April because of the nature of his expulsion.

Another group calling itself “The Threateners” has since taken responsibility for the threats, and the bomb threats have ceased. The University said the FBI has the lead in the investigation but declined to comment.

Pitt also responded to Johnston’s complaint with a motion to dismiss on May 17, this time citing that Johnston’s case took place in Johnstown. He filed his complaint with the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, which holds jurisdiction within the city limits of Pittsburgh, and therefore, the University claims his Johnstown-based complaint fell outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

Johnston responded to the University’s motion by naming multiple reasons that he believes his case does fall within the commission’s jurisdiction. Among his reasons were that all governing policies for the University branch campuses are subject to approval from the Board of Trustees — which is located in Pittsburgh — and that Johnstown’s campus officials sought legal advice from Pitt’s legal counsel, stationed in Pittsburgh.

Johnston said he has found support for his efforts to change Pitt’s transgender policies.

“The FBI investigation was a serious setback [to the case preparations]. But I have seen a tremendous level of community support. A lot of people admire us for fighting back to protect our civil rights, and that has made all the difference to me. As I was from the beginning, I am open to negotiation with Pitt,” Johnston said. “I know a lot of other trans organizers also want to see things settled out of court.”

Pitt declined to comment on its responses to the complaints.

“Pitt does not comment on pending litigation,” Pitt spokesman Robert Hill said on Tuesday. “The University has not discriminated against anyone.”

Transgender ad hoc committee postponed

At a May 9 meeting, the University Senate Council announced it would postpone the creation of a transgender ad hoc committee due to pending legislation.

“The committee has been formed, but we’ve been asked by legal counsel not to have them meet,” Senate Council President Michael Pinsky said.

Pitt spokesman Hill said the ad hoc committee’s work was postponed to avoid the risk that the University’s defense against the two complaints pending at the Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission might be compromised.

“Although we believe that those complaints lack merit, we do not know how long their resolution might take,” he said.

Pinsky planned to task the new committee with three goals: examining the state’s transgender policies, examining the present policies at other reputable institutions in the state and surrounding regions, and incorporating the recommendations and advice of societies that have previously addressed transgender issues.

The committee would then create a set of policies “which takes into consideration the needs and safety of the transgendered population as well as the concerns of the rest of the University — faculty, students, staff and students’ parents.”

According to the University Times, Chancellor Mark Nordenberg said in the meeting that the decision to postpone the committee is in line with past precedent Pitt has followed when dealing with pending litigation.

“We have taken the position that if we’re engaged in litigation, then our focus will be on litigation and will not involve activities of this other type,” Nordenberg said.

Professor Irene Frieze, previously poised to head the ad hoc committee before its postponement, said the committee can’t begin its work while litigation is in play because if it did proceed, then any information it uncovered could be subpoenaed and used in court against the University.

“Nobody can be free about what they say. We can’t talk openly with a lawsuit pending,” Frieze said. “I’m kind of frustrated the suits were filed, because it slowed down the process [of examining Pitt’s transgender policy].”

Dougherty expressed disappointment in the University’s decision to suspend the ad hoc committee’s work.

“It’s sad they’re not progressing on this because they’re afraid information could be used against them in court,” Dougherty said. “I do think a lot of the administration at Pitt going into the committee wanted to get things done, make a difference. And now they can’t.”