It's the midpoint of Indiana's legislative session.

The Senate narrowly passes its Partizan school board's bill.

Medical debt protections die on the floor.

Plus a collegiate transgender athlete ban.

And more from the television studios at Wfy I.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending February 28th, 2025.

Indiana Week Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

The Indiana Senate approved a bill to ban diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in state government and public schools.

Proponents say it will ensure government treats everyone equally.

Critics say it's designed to instill fear and will undo generations of progress.

The legislation, a combination of two bills advanced by a Senate committee, says that state agencies may not give preferential treatment to anyone based on race, sex, color or ethnicity.

It also requires state and local governments and schools to publish online all training, instructional and curricular materials that involve nondiscrimination, diversity, equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, or bias.

Republican Senator Gary Burton is the bill's author.

This bill prohibits.

State agencies from having DEI office offices or staff who promote discriminatory treatment.

Democratic Senator LaKeisha Jackson says this true purpose is removing barriers to help people reach their full potential.

Eliminating DEI means turning a blind eye to these disparities.

It means pretending that biases does not exist.

The Senate approved the bill by a 34 to 13 vote for Republicans, joined with Democrats and opposition.

The measure now heads to the House.

Does this measure undercut progress on issues ranging from education to infant mortality?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Mike OBrien, Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly, editor-in-chief of the Indiana Capital Chronicle I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting digital editor Lauren Chapman in for Brandon Smith this week.

Mike O'Brien why has Indiana joined this national antibody push?

Do you think Indiana was going to sit this one out?

I mean, that's the.

I mean.

look, I think of this in the next two subjects we're going to talk about.

I think what you're seeing, these are policy reactions to what the election delivered, which was perceived or otherwise, a revolt against what's viewed as extreme positions, on diversity and inclusion, un LGBTQ issues, un, of, you know, we're gonna talk about Partizan school board elections.

These are all reactions to perceived or otherwise real extreme positions that have been taken by and forced on people.

and we saw a lot of that push back in this election, which is why Donald Trump won and he won every demographic.

and this is just the policy outcome of that.

So of course, Indiana is going to follow this, just like corporations are following this voluntarily or otherwise, or or the reaction to the government.

and so Facebook was the highest profile.

Yes.

This year that that quickly moved.

And we're seeing the fortune, you know, fortune 500 companies in mass move, move away from some of these initiatives.

We're going to miss the other out on the other end, just like we missed on on this end and hopefully find some rational place to land in the in the middle.

But I think the advocates for this is like what they said.

They they said that they are tired of these decisions being made on the basis of race, sex and otherwise.

Sure.

I mean, in Delaney, what do you think about that, that idea that that because of the results of the elections, that this is kind of what the American people voted for?

I'm not sure that the the American people realize what they voted for.

The chaos that we see in Washington, for example.

But I do think that part of it, Mike, is right.

It is a reaction against extreme positions on the on these ends and people feeling that they were passed over either for admission or for jobs based on one or more of the criteria that are out there.

So I think we need to deal with that.

and we need to find some way so that, some of the past abuses, whether it's been racial or, sex related or gender related, discrimination that's occurred in this country.

I mean, let's be frank about it.

It has occurred.

It's occurred across the board and and, and we need to recognize that and find a method for helping to correct those past abuses.

At the same time, we don't go so far that we caused the kind of reaction that we've seen, politically.

Nikki Kelly, kind of looking at this, you know, very narrowly for Indiana, what are some of the consequences of this particular bill, or do we even know, like, especially as Indiana is trying to tackle some of these big issues like maternal mortality and everything else?

I mean, I think we're already seeing it.

We're seeing colleges take down their DEI pages.

And I remember on the House floor, I mean, the Senate floor, when they were debating this, there was discussion about whether a couple scholarships that were created in honoring former senators who were, people of color, whether they would still be allowed.

I mean, I think a lot of this is still, you know, to be seen.

so, you know, I guess we'll see in the, in the house still is going to have their say, but I don't expect any major changes.

Yeah.

I mean, John, one of the purposes of, of these, you know, DEI programs and acknowledgment within state government especially is to address systemic racism, systemic sexism, systemic homophobia.

I mean, do can Indiana government address some of the downstream effects of that systemic a of discrimination without acknowledging, you know, diversity, equity and inclusion?

Probably not.

I mean, we couldn't do it before these types of programs were put in place.

Now, granted, you know, we're not accountable for our parents and grandparents decisions.

And we have evolved, one would think, as a society and in our viewpoints.

but I don't I'm not sure things automatically now are we're going to have this idyllic situation where everybody's, you know, walks around with a with an IQ score done through, you know, blind testing on his or her forehead.

And that becomes the sole determinant of whether that person succeeds in life.

It.

And I think that's a little Pollyanna.

I agree with Nikki.

We also don't know what the implications are of this.

And, and that's assuming we can even agree as a society, and as a state, let's just keep Indiana for the time being.

What these even though there's a an attempt to define things that you can't deal with.

You know, and you did the list in the open that's open to so much interpretation.

Yeah.

and to know where does the honoring of a colleague who was a person of color, as you suggest?

Stop.

And giving special favor to a person of color.

Start.

I mean, there's just so many of these things, it's, they're they're difficult.

They're complicated.

and what is likely to come out of this will be a lot of litigation.

this is not the kind of thing where we fix that problem if it's a problem, but we fix that and we're moving on.

This is just the start of a discussion.

Yeah, certainly.

Well, moving on, the Senate narrowly approved a bill at the midpoint deadline that will force school board races to become Partizan.

The bill's author says he believes school boards are already Partizan, but hidden under the radar.

Republican Senator Gary Burns bill would require Partizan primaries for school board candidates who want to run as Democrats or Republicans, while forcing anyone else to add their minor party designations on the general election ballot.

Like it or not, your political party is a shorthand for your overall worldviews, your values, and the way you will vote in office.

Republican Senator Liz Brown ran for school board years ago.

She's opposed to the bill, saying it puts up barriers for ordinary people who want to run.

I'm not sure I would have wanted to get.

Political that early on.

I just wanted to help Fort Wayne Community Schools.

The house had its own version of a Partizan school boards bill that failed to advance by the session's first half deadline.

That measures author Republican J.D.

Prescott says he'll work with th Nikki Kelly Do these political shorthands make voting and school board elections more accessible?

I don't know that accessible is the right word.

I mean, anyone can vote in any school board race now they're accessible.

there are certainly people out there who I think would like it because then they don't have to do any work, right?

They don't have to learn about the candidates and see where they stand on issues.

And it's very easy.

Little push the straight ticket and it's done.

so, I mean, it might be easier for people.

But yeah, I mean, John one is thinking about that straight ticket, you know, party vote.

does that sort of lower the barrier for folks to engage in some of these, or does it's.

Hard to get lower than we are in terms of engagement?

Voters in this state and other states are lazy.

Sorry, I if I'm offending you, they don't do take it seriously.

and we are at peril because of it.

Because you need to do.

And this is a participation sport democracy and how many things would you just sit back and out, get my cheat sheet, and I'll do this for important decisions.

Even if somebody is giving you a little, you know, this is an hour.

This is a day.

So you can you don't you still want to do homework that because that suggests that the Republican Party is monolithic and the Democratic Party is monolithic.

I think there are still degrees of separation and different shades of opinion within those parties, and to suggest otherwise.

I think we've lost, nuance.

The other thing I'd point out is no candidate was prevented from espousing that political affiliation before I could have walked around and said, I'm a libertarian, I'm green, I'm Republican, Democrat, whatever.

And people could have a I think a party could have sent out a mailer saying that I it endorsed me.

So this just I mean, I'm not sure what.

We were talking about this, though, in a very specific context.

I mean, what is it now?

Seven Indiana counties don't have access to any reporters.

And so we are talking about a lot of counties that exist within news deserts.

It's hard to find some of that information often.

I wonder if that like having that shorthand not too well that.

A sense of, again, that the label tells all.

They actually.

And I joked a moment ago about having the standardized test score on our head, and we don't want labels, and we know that people should be judged in their own merits, and not in a vacuum.

This is a classic example, because I can believe it or not, I can tell you there.

I know plenty of Republicans who don't see eye to eye with, other people who bear the same party affiliation.

And it goes.

Why are you looking at me?

I'm looking at you.

you came to mind, but I'll look at her, too, and I.

Because I could say the same thing about Democrats.

It just sort of cheapens the process, it seems to me.

Interesting.

Yeah.

I mean, I want to go over to Mike.

This has been something that's come up a couple of times at the legislature.

Why is this specifically a Republican push?

Well, because it's a reaction to another perceived extreme critical race theory teachings.

Right.

And this this is where this all started, that we need to know who these people are.

Because if you're if you're a Republican, you're presumed to be anti CRT pro school choice.

You know, and.

Pro burning books.

And and.

You know.

Just saying.

he's thinking of his own platform and that may not.

Be right, but I but I do think I agree with part of what John said.

that I think these are really local elections and I think these are really informed voters, notwithstanding the news deserts and that that that problem.

but in my experience, when I was a county chairman and not, you know, I was Republican county chairman, but I wasn't obviously overseeing Super Bowls.

But this a big part of the election.

It was a big part of the conversation.

And people are really engaged, especially people with kids.

They want to know who's going on there.

There's a part of me that also thinks maybe we shouldn't even elect these people.

They should be they should be appointed by the governing bodies or the mayors of you know, of a of a city.

so you're getting qualified people.

It's like it's like appointing it's like electing people at the county, like, hospital boards, you know, it's like we don't do that.

We have those people appointed who are qualified.

But we do also still vote for coroners.

That's right.

Yeah.

And it doesn't have to be a somebody who is a.

You know, really we only have, what, 28% of registered voters who vote in primaries at all.

And their lowest 14%.

Oh, okay.

And we have a lot of people out there who don't identify with a political party but are interested in their local schools.

And what does that say?

I mean, why can't they just simply run as a parent who's in.

Effect on it.

Has to come up.

It's going to stand up and say, you know, to run.

I have to identify with Donald Trump.

Wow.

Or or I'm a Democrat now.

I've got to go defend all the stuff Democrats are doing right.

And that's that's what you shouldn't.

You they ought to be able to run on the basis of what they want to do for their local schools without party affiliation.

This is just and this is another attempt to try to, to, to to make an issue that critical race theory isn't, doesn't even exist, okay.

It doesn't even exist.

And yet they held it up the same way they did English as the national language and burning the flags and every other hot button issue Republicans circle, you know, surfaced periodically, as an excuse exists.

They're just marginalized, infrequent and amplified by you.

Take this.

If we want to equip parents with as much information as possible about the curriculum so they can raise red flags, why stop here?

This.

I'm being facetious.

Anyone listening?

Why not say teachers have to declare and public schools are party affiliation.

So you know going in what your what the social studies teacher that's teaching little Johnny or little Sally because that saves me time.

Oh reporters.

To.

I.

We've also never voted in a primary so it might be a long wait.

And that's why we have to declare we need to know.

John, I also established a don't ask, don't tell for for, queer teachers in Indiana.

Yeah, exactly.

Time now for our viewer feedback.

Each week we posted unscientific online poll question.

This week's question do Partizan school boards put up barriers for people hoping to run for a yes or B no?

Last week's question Should Indiana's local law enforcement agencies play a bigger role in helping enforce federal immigration laws?

19% of you voted yes, 81% said no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to why I Dawgs.

I air and look for the poll.

Indiana lawmakers passed a measure to ban transgender women from competing in collegiate sports.

The bill seeks to codify a recent executive order from President Donald Trump.

The bill's author, Representative Michelle Davis, says the legislation is about fairness.

Ensuring fairness in collegiate sports is essential to.

Protecting.

Opportunities for female collegiate athletes.

The representative, Blake Johnson, says the bill does nothing to address existing inequities in athletic opportunities.

If we truly cared about fairness, we'd be debating bills to invest in girls sports, to expand access and to strengthen competition.

Instead, we're debating a manufactured culture war issue.

The NCAA president says there are fewer than ten transgender collegiate athletes among the association's more than 500,000.

The NCAA changed its transgender athlete policy earlier this month to conform with Trump's executive order.

Republicans and Democrats split both in support and opposition to the bill.

It now goes to the Senate.

And Delaney, advocates I talked to ahead of this vote said statehouse allies walked away from protecting transgender Hoosiers.

So why are we seeing Democrats splitting on LGBTQ issues as federal policies become more aggressive?

I don't think that they're walking away from from LGBT issues.

I think this is the perfect example of an extreme position that we've already lost on.

Okay, for ten people in the NCAA and what the Republicans want to do is hold this up as a red flag, saying the Democrats are out of control, out of control and out of touch.

Okay.

It is more important, I think, from the Democratic point of view, to protect the LGBT community against discrimination and against having decisions on their health care made by people in the legislature, and those kinds of issues that affect a wide variety of the LGBT people.

LGBTQ.

Thank you.

Population, but not the ten people that might be involved in this.

Okay, it is interesting to note that advocates especially pointed at this kind of legislation, as you know, an example of why we see trans kids especially, you know, feeling so attacked by by their government because the allies that they did have aren't standing.

Well, I understand that, but you also have, on the flip side of that, you have the parents of girls who say that it's an unfair competition to have a transgender person on the team taking their positions.

So it you know, there are two views to this, and the numbers are so small.

There are not thousands of teenage boys lined up for sex change operation so they can play girls basketball.

We know that.

Okay.

And so they take an issue that affects a very tiny percentage of the population, hold it up, and they want Democrats to embrace it so that they can then say, see, they're completely out of touch and they've gone way too far the other way.

I think it's more important for Democrats to focus on the issues that affect the community as a whole, and not Lou will not go to bat and all on a on an issue.

We've already lost the public on Michael.

Brian.

Have Democrats already lost that battle?

Absolutely.

They lost that battle.

I mean, look, there's a reason that the Republicans in the election spent $300 million on ads in swing states that pointed out Kamala Harris's support of transgender therapy for federal prisoners.

And there was no response from Kamala.

She didn't double down, which would have been ridiculous.

but she also didn't contextualize or change her position.

It just just.

It was also, for the record, ordered by a federal judge.

Yes.

Okay.

Which is what the response.

What a great answer that would have been put in a TV commercial.

I know.

in 2016, I ran the coalition that tried to expand the Civil Rights Act to protect LGBTQ, Hoosiers so they can't get evicted from their house or fired from their job, or denied health care or any or all these things.

And the and where you started with the coalition believes that these Democrats sold them out.

That was the problem.

You can't given that coalition, having worked for them and and respecting many of those people, will in that building will not give one inch and you will lose all day if that's going to be the position.

There's a reason that this is a progressive set of issues.

They progress right.

And you can't.

And particularly for the transgender community that this issue Democrats need to go.

Yeah girls boys should be playing and girls sports.

Let's get on the bus and drive to the next issue.

But we do also have science like sports science that the NCAA, the original policy from 20 2022, was backed by science like that.

Transgender women athletes were actually performing worse than their cisgender counterparts.

I, I think that, yeah, that's fine.

Then you can lose another election, then you can lose Congress.

You could lose every branch of government again, if that's going to be the position, if that's really the attitude of Democrats, get ready to lose every branch of government all over again in Indiana and across the country.

Maybe in 20 years, the attitude will be different.

It's progressive.

So that's right.

But it isn't.

It isn't there now and there are there.

You've got to pick your battles.

And that's not a battle that from my perspective it's for the Democrats picking.

Yeah.

At the moment.

You're going to lose.

And the bill can be repealed if in 20 years we go this is make sense.

And this has been socialized.

Just like we've expanded.

We've made tremendous advances on on gay marriage and other issues.

We'll get there.

But we're not there yet.

John.

It's a kind of the similar vibe, you know, is is this a losing battle for Democrats or, you know, is there an obligation to go to a base that has supported Democrats in the past?

And I look at the media, I think we're all in agreement here.

Mary, if you look at the polling, even within the Democratic Party, people self-identify as Democrats.

It's I don't think that it's a huge loss.

Yeah.

And people there's so many ways to approach this issue, and, and articulated some like articulated some it's a cliche to say you're not going to make everybody happy, but for everybody who says, you know, I want my, child who has had gender reassignment to be able to play in the sport.

You have X number.

Probably more of people saying that.

Now that deprives my child of the opportunity.

And that is one ground, one place on which this battle can be fought.

But then do you say by fighting that battle and losing, do you give up the more realistic opportunity to protect their medical rights and the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children in terms of reassignment, away from the athletic, competition, away from the court and the field?

and it's the realities of of, I mean, ideological purity doesn't work very well in, in our system.

Yeah.

Leverage this issue and try to make progress on the civil rights side.

Go, go, go.

Get those protections that still don't exist.

I mean, that's still.

That being said, though, I mean, most of these are a reaction to the 2020 Bostock decision, which I'm so sorry for anybody who's had to hear me talk about the 2025 stock decision, that one of the things that the reason why we're talking about sports right now is because of the decision that protected from the Supreme Court precedent, employment rights on the basis of sex for transgender and other queer people.

so, Nikki Kelly, I kind of going.

I don't know anything about that decision.

I mean, I that's it.

I hate to abide by a slippery slope.

Are you really going into the weeds here?

Oh, what do you expect for this bill moving forward?

This is expected to pass easily and with bipartisan support, overwhelming support.

And that's because that's what Americans believe on a whole.

Look what happened to the governor who vetoed a bill that done this at this college, that there was one that dealt with high school and other competitions.

And if memory serves, there was a veto overridden.

So it had nothing to do in the end.

And where is that person now?

Not governor.

Well, and there are and there are obviously, areas where discrimination is not only possible but occurs and those have to be dealt with.

And it seems to me those have impact on so many more lives.

and those are worth fighting for.

I don't think it's a slippery slope.

Let's revisit the theme of the show.

This is exactly.

And I have a feeling I'm going to tell.

Me I'm an American that is forced to put my pronouns on my work email.

there's tampons in the men's bathroom.

And now I got to support band and our women, women, women want to play in men, or men want to play in girls sports.

I've had enough of it.

And they look at Donald Trump, we go, what's he talking about?

Evicting illegal immigrants?

for him.

Get me out all the rest of this stuff.

And that is the election in a nutshell.

It was a lot more complicated than that.

It was an emotional reaction to this set of issues.

Well, okay, there you go.

And now for something entirely different.

Finally, it's National Girl Scout Cookie Weekend.

And as a 12 year veteran of the Girl Scouts of Central Indiana, I have the perhaps the most important question to ask of our panel, starting first with the Ed Delaney.

I never actually asked her on a question this time.

Sorry.

and Delaney, that's all right.

But all right.

What's your favorite Girl Scout?

Cookies and mint chocolate.

Really thin mints.

Not even a.

Thin Mints, you.

Know.

I know, but it's not.

She doesn't even know the name.

It's a Thin Mints.

She's like, she's describing.

Hey, it's what I get every.

Time I tell you what, it's not truffle oils.

And I've got a trefoil.

I've got a colleague who swears the trefoil is the best cookie.

That is.

That is a garbage cookie.

It just like a real snack cookie.

I again.

I'm a tagalong guy.

And Molly O'Brien still has 87 boxes to sell to reach our goal.

So if anybody.

That's got they're still serving on the.

Train.

I mean.

You're starving me again.

So you didn't ask me.

So.

Sorry.

That's all right.

This is your.

Favorite.

But persimmon, of course, was in the running to be the state fruit.

So note to, Girl Scouts.

We didn't get it at the state fruit, but.

We didn't get it as a state fruit for a reason.

All right, putting it in a cookie.

I think that's I think that's all.

All right.

That's it for this week.

That's Indiana in Review Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes of Indiana lawmakers and Nikki Kelly of the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week interviews, podcasts and episodes at wfyi.org/iwir with or on the PBS app.

In This Week for Brandon Smith, I'm Lauren Chapman of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time, because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.