By Jennifer Hiller
Advertiser Education Writer

It's the issue that won't go away.

In an ongoing battle over wording, gay-rights advocates are crying foul over a decision by the Board of Education last week to change the code of conduct in the board's bylaws.

Board members voted to amend their bylaws to say that they will "treat all individuals fairly, with respect and courtesy."

The problem?

The board had been considering whether to add "sexual orientation" and "disability" to a list of other classes of people that they would treat with respect. In the end, the board decided to scrap the list of groups and go with "all."

The proposed wording would have matched the text in the much-debated, long-agonized Chapter 19 rule, which bars students from harassing others because of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, among other things.

The decision to add sexual orientation to Chapter 19 was the focus of a nearly two-year fight between gay-rights advocates and opponents of the anti-harassment rule. The two sides complained alternately about the lack of enforcement of Chapter 19 and the perception that the schools would endorse homosexuality by teaching tolerance of gay students.

In January, it seemed the board had finally put the debate to rest when Superintendent Pat Hamamoto presented a plan to implement Chapter 19.

Now that Chapter 19 is settled, new complaints are surfacing.

Board member Karen Knudsen said she supported changing the language of Chapter 19 to be more inclusive. But she doesn't understand the flap over the board's own code of conduct. The code didn't even exist a few years ago and is not a legal document in the same way that a board policy is, she said.

"This is a code of conduct for us," Knudsen said. "I'm not sure how you can be offended. It says all people will be treated with respect and dignity."

Knudsen said the decision to go with the word "all" came after a discussion of what other types of things might be added to the list of whom to respect. "We started to wonder, should you add age, communicable diseases or other things?" she said.

But gay-rights advocates see it differently.

They say the removal of the protected classes amounts to more than a snub: It's a deliberate insult.

"If that phrase works in the Chapter 19 policy, why doesn't that phrase work across the board?" asked Michael Golojuch Jr., a civil-rights activist. "I'm looking for a clear and consistent message coming from the Board of Education."

In an effort to try to get the matter reconsidered, Golojuch has complained to the Office of Information Practices about a possible legal glitch in the way the board voted on the issue.

Some board members say they may revote on the issue at their next meeting to clear up the confusion and make sure that everything is by the book.

They also may face pressure to reconsider Chapter 41, the civil-rights policy that prohibits discrimination in the public schools.

Gay-rights activists say their next goal is to make sure that "sexual orientation" and "disability" are included in the list of specifically protected classes on that policy, too.

Reach Jennifer Hiller at jhiller@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8084.