The Gilbert School Board did not discuss including sexual orientation in their discussion of the non-discrimination and harassment policies.

The two policies, added to the agenda as discussion items as a result of harassment and hate crimes against an openly gay Gilbert High School student, were not discussed at Monday’s meeting.

Jerryn Johnston said his car has been vandalized on school property several times. Johnston and his mother Sue Ellen Tuttle pleaded with the school board earlier this year to take action by adding sexual orientation to the current non-discrimination policy.

Tuttle, communications specialist for the College of Family and Consumer Sciences, said the board ignored the issue, despite the 22 people who spoke in favor of the amendment.

“What stunned me most was that the board members did not ever discuss the non-discrimination policy,” she said. “They just said, `I have no suggestions for change.’ It was very dismissive.”

School board member James McKean said he believes the board did provide adequate time to discuss the issue.

“We had over an hour and a half of public forum for the addition or non-addition of sexual orientation,” McKean said.

“It was discussed at length by probably 25 speakers, of which about two-thirds were in support [of adding sexual orientation],” he said.

“First we discussed the non-discrimination policy. It was judged by the members of the board that there would be no need for further adjustment.”

McKean said each of the board members had his or her own reason for not adding sexual orientation to the policies.

“My reason [for not adding sexual orientation] is that it was not a compelling case made for the inclusion of sexual orientation in either policy as to how that would strengthen the current policy,” McKean said.

Tuttle said eight spoke against the amendment. School board members seemed to have talked about the issue beforehand, Tuttle said.

“This is supposed to be a public meeting for public discussion,” Tuttle said. “It is illegal to hold discussions outside of the meeting, but clearly they came prepared knowing what they were already going to say.”

Some of those who spoke against the amendment voiced their fears over the “morality” of homosexuality.

Tuttle said a parent who attended the meeting suggested the current policy remain because homosexuality is not in accordance with his religious beliefs, and is worried his daughters will be torn between what the school and the church are teaching them is moral.

“It is critical that the Gilbert School Board remember, however, that beliefs are not the issue here,” she said. “The church and the state are separate bodies. It is the board’s appropriate role, and only role, to address the existence of discrimination.”

Todd Herriott, faculty adviser for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Ally Alliance, said he was disappointed in the outcome of the meeting.

“The fact that [sexual orientation] was glossed over is upsetting,” Herriott said. “The Iowa Board of Education needs to make a stand in ensuring all students have access and rights to their education. This is sending a message that it is OK if you want to discriminate against some people.”

Tyson Benson, junior in computer engineering, said Johnston should have expected opposition.

“I agree with what [the school board] voted on,” he said. “I believe [Johnston] went into the situation knowing full well that probably there would be some discrimination against him.”

Benson said although he doesn’t condone the hate crimes, he thinks Johnston could have handled it better by keeping his sexual orientation to himself.

“I don’t think [a new non-discrimination policy] would deter them. I think they did it because they felt uncomfortable or didn’t understand the preference he made,” Benson said.