SPI Schroeder creates phony crisis with USDA discrimination policy

If Wyoming gave out an award for political grandstanding, Superintendent of Public Instruction Brian Schroeder would win hands down.

Schroeder, in a batch of news releases, wants people to know he’s fighting the federal government with every fiber of his being. Because if he doesn’t, “We will forever be under the feds’ thumb, beholden to a controlling political mindset that wants to own every aspect of our lives, including our belief system.”

The superintendent called this “a defining moment for the identity and future of Wyoming and its schools.”

“We must break free if we are to be free,” Schroeder said, adding that what the feds want Wyoming to do is “morally repugnant” and “another breathtaking display of political ideology run amok.”

Wow! What on Earth is President Joe Biden’s out-of-control administration  doing to us now? It must be pretty heinous to merit such outrage from Wyoming’s top school official, even if he was not elected and doesn’t really represent anyone but himself.

It turns out Schroeder blew a gasket because the U.S. Department of Agriculture wants all food nutrition programs that receive federal funds to update their anti-discrimination policies to include sexual orientation and gender identity. 

The consequences for not complying with that policy, though, are incredibly stiff. The Wyoming Department of Education stands to lose $40 million a year in federal school lunch funds if the state actually complies with Schroeder’s hissy fit.

But not to worry, because he’s got it all figured out. Schroeder said Wyoming doesn’t need that dirty federal money and can just pay for the school lunch program on its own. Severing our dependence on federal dollars, he added, will be “liberating.”

If Schroeder wants to write a $40 million check, it’s fine and dandy, but I’m pretty sure his account would be overdrawn. The superintendent can’t even count on his state paycheck to cover a small portion of the tab, because once voters realize what he’s costing the state, I doubt many will want to give him the job for four more years. 

Schroeder has been pretty busy since February, when Gov. Mark Gordon tapped him to fill the post vacated by Jillian Balow, who flew the coop to accept a similar post in Virginia. Schroeder has embraced every controversy that’s crossed his desk, including bills to prohibit teaching “critical race theory” and ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports.

The Senate, which moves politically further right every session, passed both measures. But the House wisely recognized the bills as unnecessary and punitive, and said no.

It will be up to the Legislature to decide whether it’s worth $40 million to make a political statement to the federal government — the same one that has bailed out the Department of Education with hundreds of millions of dollars in COVID-19 relief funds since 2020.

In case lawmakers and voters have forgotten, the state will have an estimated $300 million budget shortfall per year when all the extra federal funds for K-12 schools run out. Do they really want to add a $40 million annual expenditure in response to a phony moral crisis just to help rile up the GOP’s base?

The reason so many red states have banned transgender female athletes from school sports is because it’s a proven winner for politicians. They know nothing ticks their voters off as much as the idea of transgender students using the school restroom or locker room of the gender they identify as, rather than the one they were assigned at birth.

That’s why Schroeder and others, including 26 state attorneys general, are howling that the feds are holding students’ lunches “hostage” until officials bow to their demand to be politically correct.

The problem is the claim is not true, and the opponents know it. 

Politico offered the clearest explanation I’ve found about what the government is asking states to do:

“The USDA guidance is only aimed at programs that receive federal nutrition money, not other aspects of school policy that may affect LGBTQ students. A USDA official emphasized that the administration wouldn’t pull funding from a school lunch program just because the state has restrictive laws around sports or bathroom access for transgender kids, nor because a school lacks an LGBTQ policy.

“Rather, individuals could only file complaints if they’ve been discriminated against by the specific school lunch program based on gender identity — for example, if they were denied food because they were transgender.”

It has nothing to do with bathrooms or locker rooms, so why does Schroeder so strenuously object to complying? He spelled out his unwarranted fears in a statement the department issued: “Washington has shown its hand, and will never stop at forcing its woke agenda and ever-changing value system on people who refuse to embrace it. Be fully assured, this is not the end – they will be back (i.e. boys in girls sports, forced usage of pronouns, etc.).”

At a recent Republican SPI candidate forum in Cheyenne, Schroeder said he spoke with the governor in May when the USDA announced the additions to food and nutrition programs’ anti-discrimination policies. He said Gordon told him he could “come out strong against this,” then walked his permission back and said the department must comply procedurally until the issue is resolved. 

Three days later, Schroeder rebelled after getting advice from lawmakers, State Treasurer Curt Meier and state SPIs around the country that having the state pony up the $40 million is definitely “doable,” he said.

“I called my people in, and I said I didn’t like [the policy], I wasn’t comfortable with it, and we’re not going to comply,” he recalled.

Schroeder said some DOE employees disagreed, and told him, “You’re going to lose the election.”

“I said that’s fine, so be it,” he said. “This is a high enough hill to die on. I know where the Wyoming people are at on this. We’re not going to comply, and we’re in good company: 26 other states have linked arms and are pushing back, and the Biden administration already is backing off.”

Except no one is backing off. Last week the USDA sent a letter to the states that have objected to the policy, reminding them the Aug. 3 deadline to put it into effect still applies.

The only Democratic SPI candidate is Sergio Maldonado Sr. of the Wind River Indian Reservation. Last week he issued a statement that said Schroeder’s comments “would be laughable, if it were not for the fact that his brazen display of bigotry is harmful to Wyoming’s children, putting some kids in danger while displaying complete ignorance and lack of respect for marginalized people.”

Maldonado added there is no way the state will turn away federal dollars when tax revenues to fund public education have drastically fallen. He correctly called Schroeder’s posturing “ridiculous.”

It’s also self-serving. Gordon said the policy can’t be decided until the Legislature meets in January and considers its funding options. That gives Schroeder the opportunity to score political points by making inflammatory remarks about a non-issue that won’t even be considered until two months after the general election.

Schroeder claims the moral high ground and even says it’s worth losing the election if he can keep transgender students out of the “wrong” bathroom — even though the policy at stake has nothing to do with bathrooms but simply making sure low-income LGBTQ kids aren’t denied meals.

Let’s act according to our core moral values: respect and fairness to all. If we can’t simply agree to investigate any claims of gender identity discrimination in school lunch programs, the moral high ground is not only gone, we’ve hit rock bottom.