COLTS NECK, NJ — A proposed “Parents Bill of Rights” by the Colts Neck Board of Education has drawn sharp criticism from a leading LGBTQ advocacy group, triggering a public exchange of letters between Garden State Equality and the board’s leadership ahead of an upcoming school board meeting.
In a letter addressed to Superintendent Dr. MaryJane Garibay and board members, Lauren Albrecht, Director of Advocacy and Organizing for Garden State Equality, denounced the proposal as a “disingenuously-named” policy that could violate New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The group specifically warned against any provision that might permit school staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, which it called “a direct violation” of state law.
It has been brought to the public’s attention that at your upcoming meeting, you intend to introduce a disingenuously-named “Parents Bill of Rights” policy.
Parents always have had, and still do have, all rights to which they are required and permitted by law. There is no policy that can be adopted by a Board of Education that violates New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. Please be advised, removal of transgender student guidance notwithstanding, any situation in which school staff discloses a student’s gender identity to anyone against the student’s will is a direct violation of the LAD.
-Garden State Equality
“Adopting a policy such as this has only the effect of signaling to LGBTQ students and their parents… that this Board of Education would rather not stand by data-driven policy that helps keep LGBTQ kids safe,” Albrecht wrote. She also criticized the board’s removal of transgender student guidance the previous year and accused it of “partisan political pandering.”
Board of Education pushes back on ‘bullying’ accusations
In response, Colts Neck Board of Education Chairman Robert P. Scales issued a sharply worded letter rejecting the allegations as “aggressive misrepresentation” and labeling Garden State Equality’s communication as “troubling, inappropriate, and bullying.”
I am absolutely appalled by the bullying tactics displayed by Garden State Equality in their recent letter to our Board of Education. We firmly reject any attempts to gaslight and intimidate our district, board members, staff, and especially our students. Our commitment to student safety and well-being is unwavering, and we will not tolerate harassment or bullying from any organization.
I call upon New Jersey state leaders Vin Gopal, Governor Phil Murphy, Senator Andy Kim, and Chris Smith to publicly condemn this aggressive and unjustified behavior, and support our district as we continue to foster a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment for all students and families. Protecting our students is our highest priority, and we will take every step necessary to shield our community from such unacceptable actions.
Board Member Robert P. Scales, Colts Neck Board of Education
“Your students hear you saying these things, and it doesn’t stop them from being LGBTQ, it just stops them from feeling safe at school. Adopting a policy such as this has only the effect of signaling to LGBTQ students and their parents in your district that this Board of Education would rather not stand by data-driven policy that helps keep LGBTQ kids safe, and that you prioritize partisan political pandering over the safety of students,” GS Equality said in the statement.
“Our district categorically rejects any insinuation that we aim to single out or marginalize any student or group,” Scales wrote, defending the intent of the Parents Bill of Rights as grounded in respect for all students. He accused the advocacy group of harassment and “gaslighting,” adding, “We will not tolerate” such tactics.
Scales maintained that the board welcomes “productive conversations and partnerships” but called for “a more respectful and fact-based approach moving forward.”
The Colts Neck policy proposal, and the debate surrounding it, come amid broader national and statewide disputes over parental rights legislation and the handling of LGBTQ-related school policies. While details of the proposed bill have not been fully released, the exchange signals contentious proceedings ahead.
The board is expected to discuss the policy at its upcoming meeting, where further public comment is anticipated. Neither side indicated any plans to de-escalate the issue prior to that session.
“It is our expectation that organizations, particularly those dedicated to advocacy and equality, engage in constructive, informed dialogue rather than resorting to divisive and incendiary communications. We remain open to productive conversations and partnerships but strongly urge a more respectful and fact-based approach moving forward.”
