When Justin Elliot, then a CHS junior, stood before the Clayton Board of Education in spring 2010, he had one simple request: to officially protect district employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now, nearly a year later, that change is being realized.

“Parkway tried doing this five or six years ago and there was a big push, but it was voted down,”  Chief Communications Officer Chris Tennill said.

In fact, Elliott knew the story well. His brother, 12 years older than he, had been a part of the push for the policy at Parkway.

Though Clayton is historically a progressive district that embraces all forms of diversity, Elliot was concerned that although this was implied, legally someone could still be fired from the District based upon gender identity or other similar criteria.

“Clayton is on the frontier of these things,” Elliot said. “I thought that it should be on gay rights, too.”

Clearly, so did many others. The BOE began exploring the implications of such a policy, and on the student end, the CHS Equality Club rallied behind the cause, led by Elliot and Cooper Minnis, both still CHS students at the time.

The Board reported hearing a student-run public comment last fall of 2010, which urged a non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation.

“It’s not [the Board’s] practice to respond to public comments, but we looked into it and sought legal counsel,” BOE President Sonny Buttar said.

A rough draft was produced, but on the legal end there were still questions. Other issues moved to the forefront of the BOE’s attention, and the process ended up stagnating soon after. In May 2011 Minnis and company paid the Board another visit, although Elliot was unable to attend.

“There were a lot of questions about the policy, and it sort of got tabled,” CHS Principal Louise Losos said. “It wasn’t that anyone was intentionally avoiding the issue.”

Buttar agreed.

“We had a lot going on last fall with the new superintendent,” Buttar said. “We thought we had posted [the policy for review], but we hadn’t. So in May, the students said, ‘Hey, what happened?’”

And as soon as they did, Losos said, they “got the ball rolling.”  A draft was put up for a mandatory review period in July, though according to Board Director Brad Bernstein the usual 60-day comment period between the first and second readings was halved due to a majority decision to get the delayed policy mostly in place by the start of the 2011-12 school year.

The Board, Buttar added, had to determine “what, if any, collateral consequences would there be to adopting the policy”—such as offering benefits to same-sex couples. The latter question became, and continues to be, a key point of discussion.

The Board originally withheld benefits from the new policy, as it was originally discussed during a time in the school year in which all employees were filing for health insurance, which would have added complication.

Currently, the District does not offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples. On that basis, it does not offer those benefits to similar homosexual couples.

However, Buttar said Clayton may follow the example of Ladue, which offers benefits to domestic partners of all sexual orientations, and discuss the addition of benefits in the future.

“I think it is a great step by the district that shows a true commitment to the equality, diversity and community that has been expressed indirectly but not formally recognized in the past,” art teacher Christina Vodicka said. “I hope that domestic partner benefits would eventually be offered—it’s so easy.”

Losos agreed.

“I’m very proud the Board has done this,” Losos said. “It’s a good thing for the district and the community, and I hope we can continue the discussions further.”

She added that in regards to the partner benefits, she hopes that we “see them in the future.”

The non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination on basis of “sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity,” and it is important to note that state law does not require such a policy. As such, many consider the act of enacting it as going ‘above and beyond.’

Others, though, simply consider it to be going ‘above.’

During the comment period, Missouri State Senator Jane Cunningham paid a call to Interim Superintendant Sharmon Wilkinson, citing the fact that the Missouri School Boards’ Association discourages including sexual orientation in non-discrimination policies due to unnecessary added liability.

“My responsibility is a constitutional responsibility,” Cunningham said. “I have to make sure that all Missouri students get a quality education… teachers, building, and curriculum are very expensive costs.”

Cunningham reported that she did not want to burden taxpayers even more with the added liability of protecting another category in the anti-discrimination policy.

“You could get discriminated against for anything, whether you’re short or fat or ugly or have green eyes or whatever,” Cunningham said. “School district personnel should protect all students no matter what the reason for harassment, bullying or discrimination.  But once we start a list in policy, it will have no end.”

Nevertheless, the Board will hold the second reading of the policy on Aug. 24, and it is expected that the policy will be passed.

In the here and now, benefits aside, many are indeed simply happy that the policy has been set in motion after the wait, though with Clayton, the general consensus seems to be that the policy is more of a statement than a needed physical change.

It is very much, as Losos said, a “psychological security.”

Sociology teacher Rick Kordenbrock agreed, saying that his class discusses a similar theme every year.

The policy, he agrees, “gives a certain assurance of legal protection. It’s recognition of rights.”

An undeniable step forward, at the end of the day, the process continues to uphold the progressive and welcoming reputation that Clayton has come to embody.

“This cause means so much to us because we know that there are many gay and lesbian teachers throughout the Clayton School District,” CHS graduate Cooper Minnis said. “Though the idea of them losing their jobs because of their sexual orientation seems rather a foreign concept to us who live in the City of Clayton, nonetheless there has been a dark cloud of uncertainty for these teachers that compromises the job security that both they and their students depend on.”

Though Elliot and Minnis graduated from CHS last May before seeing their cause completely fulfilled, they are still grateful, for on August 24, the clouds lift.

“Better late,” Elliot said, “than never.”