Require an employee of a school district, the Board of Regents, or the South Dakota Board of Technical Education to receive permission of a parent or guardian of an unemancipated minor student before addressing the student with a name other than the student's legal name and to prohibit the compulsory use of gendered language inconsistent with sex.
HB1177 would regulate how employees of South Dakota school districts, the Board of Regents, and the Board of Technical Education may address students and other individuals in educational settings. For unemancipated minor students, the bill requires written parental or guardian permission before an employee may use a name other than the student’s legal name or a derivative of it, or use a preferred title or pronoun that is inconsistent with the student’s sex as defined in the bill. It also defines “sex” in biological terms tied to reproductive role, chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia at birth.
The bill further prohibits schools and higher-education institutions from disciplining employees who decline to use names or pronouns inconsistent with sex, and it creates a private right of action for employees who suffer adverse employment action. Students are likewise protected from discipline for refusing to state pronouns or for refusing to address others using names or pronouns inconsistent with sex. In both employee and student cases, the bill allows lawsuits for injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, with a two-year limitations period.
If enacted, HB1177 would add new provisions to chapter 13-1 governing conduct in K-12 schools and public postsecondary institutions, including institutions under the Board of Regents and the Board of Technical Education. It would constrain school and campus policies on preferred names, pronouns, and compelled speech, while also exposing districts and institutions to civil liability for adverse employment or disciplinary actions taken in violation of the act. The bill would affect students, teachers, administrators, and other employees, and would likely require changes to nondiscrimination, student conduct, and staff training policies.
The available voting history suggests the bill was controversial and faced significant resistance, though it also had meaningful support in committee. On February 10, it was deferred by a 9-5 vote, and on February 21 it was reconsidered by a narrower 8-7 vote, indicating a closely divided and contentious debate. No committee transcript is available, but the vote pattern suggests the measure drew strong opinions on both sides rather than broad consensus.
The main point of contention is compelled use of names and pronouns in schools and public higher education, especially as it relates to transgender and gender-nonconforming students. Supporters are likely to frame the bill as protecting parental authority, free speech, and employees’ and students’ rights not to use language they believe conflicts with sex-based definitions. Opponents are likely to argue that the bill targets transgender students, undermines inclusive school policies, and could create hostile learning and working environments while inviting litigation against districts and institutions.