Earlier this month, the NC General Assembly overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto to make S49 law. Among other things, this law requires the following:
As a teacher tasked with implementing this law in my classroom and a mom of 2 schoolchildren, I was sincerely interested in proactively navigating how the “naming clause” would impact my students and my own children. Prior to its final passage, I reached out to members of the NCGA who voted in favor of the bill and use preferred names on ballots in order to raise concerns and seek clarification.
Many offices didn’t reply, some wanted to know first if I was a constituent before valuing a note of concern (despite this law affecting the entire state, not just their district), some were condescending, and a few were helpful in seeking and sending clarification related to the details of the law (thank you!).
I’ll share those details here for the benefit of others navigating this broad law.
I’ll also include how some schools or districts are at risk of misapplying the law as has been shared with me via confirmation from those in touch with S49 bill sponsors and NCGA lawyers. I’ll use preliminary legal guidance emailed from the North Carolina Association for Public Charter Schools as a framework:
Part 1: Timing is everything
Item 1 of the email above begins: “Make sure teachers inform their classes that no name or pronouns changes will be permitted at this time.” Districts have until September 15 (30 days after final passage by NCGA) to issue guidance. The window is designed to give entities tasked with execution of a new law time to process and implement procedures to comply.
Advising a precautionary “freeze” on calling John Joseph Smith III by his nickname “Trey” before September 15, regardless of his parents’ agreement and use of that nickname, seems an extreme pre-emptive action despite the implementation buffer period.
Within three hours of sending the email above, the North Carolina Association for Public Charter Schools also sent information related to a potential change in the deadline for compliance:
While it’s appropriate for districts to have at least the amount of time to implement the law as it took the NCGA to come back from their vacations to override the veto on August 16, it appears any schools or districts issuing “freezes” on calling students anything but their full legal name may unnecessarily exacerbate the confusion and frustration already sparked by the law as written.
Part 2: What’s in a name?
The second part of item 1 in the email above states an exception to the name freeze: “Except for nickname that shorten a students name or use their middle name. So Maxwell can be Max or Robert can be Bob.”
While it’s within the purview of schools and districts to employ naming policies until at least the September 15 deadline, this noted exception paves the way for the law once officially implemented to be misapplied based on information I received from NCGA offices.
The text of S49 states “any name change.” It does not make exceptions for middle or diminutive versions of first names as confirmed by a bill sponsor:
As I understand it, parts of S49 (“any name change”) were deliberately written with broad language to avoid violations of federal law related to civil rights that prohibit targeting specific groups (Ex. LGBTQ+).
While the NCGA has attempted plausible deniability of targeting via broad legal language, schools and districts making exceptions to the naming clause (as written and confirmed by bill sponsors) put themselves at risk of legal jeopardy for targeting by making exceptions for “any name changes” as long as the change is consistent with a student’s biological sex.
Excepting diminutive versions of names is illegal per NCGA guidance on S49 (that may not have been shared with districts).
Given bill sponsors’ claims that this law is “needed” to prevent students from having secrets at school (a new state budget is over 2 months overdue but we’re legislating kids’ rapports with their parents and school staff), how could a school or district ensure recognizing unisex diminutive names like Chris, Alex, Cam, Terry, Pat or Sam are not a student’s attempt to experiment with gender fluidity akin to a pronoun request?
It seems any school or district making exceptions to the law as written (“ANY name change”) by failing to notify parents for diminutive versions of legal names would be violating the law as much as a school or district that chose not to notify a parent about a change in pronouns.
Part 3: Permission or notification?
Item 2 of legal guidance issued by the North Carolina Association for Public Charter Schools begins: “If a student wants to go by another name or pronoun, they should have the attached notice and permission form signed and returned.“
Here’s the attached document:
This is another case of legal guidance going beyond the letter of the law.
Both an NCGA bill sponsor and NCGA lawyers responded to my inquiries by confirming the North Carolina law requires parental notification only. See below:
Confusion over whether or not North Carolina’s version of the law requires permission or notification is exacerbated by nearly identical versions of this same law popping up in other states. While all of them have a broad name change clause, they vary in whether the law requires notification or permission.
Here’s an example of a similar request of parents in Iowa:
And another example in Florida:
It’s a lot of bureaucratic bloat in an attempt to legally dance around targeting transgender students. The same folks supporting bills like these gripe about big government and wasted taxpayer money via expanding administrative overheads while passing laws requiring additional administrative tasks and infrastructure.
Part 4: It’s life or death
Not for kids like my children who want to go by their initials or nickname. I’ve already heard from fellow teachers in the state sharing that parents have rejected use of altered versions of a child’s first name requested by the student. The parents may be annoyed, but unlikely abusive. The kids may be annoyed, but unlikely scared or suicidal.
It can be lethal for kids who could be forcibly “outed” to their parents as required by law.
The remaining sections of the legal guidance offered in the North Carolina Association for Public Charter Schools email are below:
“Make sure you check the signature upon return and if you question the authenticity have the student talk with the counselor. Teachers need to stay out of this as much as possible because there is no confidentiality with teachers.
3. If you have a student that does not feel they can go to their parent, they should be directed to the school counselor, not the teacher. The reason for this is, in part, that there is no confidentiality with teachers but there is some with school counselors. Then, please reach out to me so we can discuss next steps. There is a balancing act here because student mental health and safety is paramount. If notification of the parents could cause a dangerous situation for the student (physical or mental), we need to discuss this.”
Exceptions for student safety are included in the law and reflected in the association’s guidance above.
It’s worth noting that there’s an interest among some NCGA members to alter the legal definition of “abuse.” Specifically, parents who reject their transgender child would be protected from having their behavior characterized as “abuse or neglect.”
From Part 15 of S90 proposed committee substitute:
If this language from S90 proposed committee substitute (PCS) is adopted, the current exceptions for parental notification intended to protect students from harm would pragmatically cease to exist.
S90 PCS is a more extreme version of S49, the law addressed in this post. S90 PCS is a possible next step in the progression of handcuffing public schools from serving communities based on the loud manufactured (and paid for) grievances of a small minority. For an introduction to concerns with S90 PCS beyond the “abuse” modification, I wrote this post here.
What now?
Just as the NCGA can amend the definition of abuse in current law, it can amend S49.
Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger said in a CBS17 news report: “If there are parts of the bill that are problematic, they’ll let us know. We’ll be back and we’ll be voting on things. We can try to address those issues.”
You can let him know what you think is problematic by contacting his office via email: Phil.Berger@ncleg.gov or phone: (919) 733-5708
In the same news report, Speaker of the House Tim Moore said: “I’ve talked to a number of teachers back home in my district and I have yet to have one come forward and say they have a problem with it.”
If you have a problem with it, let his office know via email: Tim.Moore@ncleg.gov or phone: 919-733-3451
educatEDpolicy 
Leave a comment