Thirteen representatives and four senators introduced legislation Tuesday that would ban events like the recent drag show held at South Dakota State University from ever happening again.
House Bill 1116 prohibits “the use of government resources to host obscene or lewd content,” according to the title. The bill specifically prohibits the Board of Regents, the Board of Technical Education, institutions under their control, state agencies or institutions under state control, and public school districts from authorizing, spending money, or using state property to develop, implement, facilitate, host, promote, or fund any ‘lewd or lascivious content’.
Such content would include any specific sexual activity, anatomical areas, nude or semi-nude adults, and adults removing their clothing for the entertainment of one or more people.
More ▼:A senator has signaled he will propose banning drag shows in South Dakota next year
The bill, if signed into law this legislative session, would also prohibit any performance in which a performer “displays a gender identity that is different from” the performer’s gender assigned at birth “through the use of clothing, makeup or other physical markers of the predominant to attract reasonable interest.’
This is similar to the definition of drag, which originated in 19th-century British theater and has heavy roots in modern LGBTQ+ culture. It is a form of performance and entertainment that challenges assumptions about gender identity and expression.
Bills similar to HB 1116 have appeared in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, MontanaNebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
Bill was probably challenged by the SDSU drag show
The introduction of HB 1116 follows controversy over an SDSU student group’s annual hosting of a drag show. The SDSU Gender and Sexualities Alliance held its annual show on Nov. 16, and the event was advertised on the university’s website calendar as family-friendly.
The announcement of the event caused consternation from some conservative lawmakers, as it was initially unclear that the event was not sponsored by the university but by a student group.
Republican Rep. Chris Carr, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and co-chair of the Joint Appropriations Committee, wrote a letter to SDSU President Barry Dunn and Board of Regents Executive Director Brian Maher prior to the event. They questioned whether taxpayers’ money would be used and whether it was appropriate.
At least two other Republican representatives shared similar sentiments online. Representative John Hansen Dunn shouted to limit the presence of children and called the event “completely inappropriate”. Representative Scott Odenbach called the event “unbelievable and unacceptable.”
A day before the event, SDSU President Barry Dunn apologized for the misunderstanding surrounding the event and clarified that it was sponsored by a recognized student organization, not the university or its office of multicultural affairs. Registered student organizations can sponsor legal events on campus under state codified law and applicable policy, he said.
More ▼:Regents to weigh policies on student activities behind closed doors after SDSU show draws criticism
Soon after, conservatives and lawmakers took their complaints about the event to a public comment period at the Dec. 8 Regents meeting in Rapid City, with one of the speakers, Republican Sen. Julie Frye-Mueller, signaling that she would introduce enabling legislation of this problem. And she did just that this Tuesday by signing HB 1116.
During that meeting, Maher said the BOR will not discriminate against student organizations based on their content, viewpoints or activities, and that access to facilities is equally available to all recognized student organizations.
More than 10 days after that, BOR President Pam Roberts announced a moratorium on the presence of minors at any events sponsored by student organizations on campus for the time being. She also announced that a meeting will be held on December 21st in executive session – behind closed doors – to discuss the show and student activities in general.
More ▼:South Dakota regents push for new juvenile participation policy in wake of drag show controversy
Following this closed meeting, the Regents voted to direct the central office to review all upcoming campus events that minors may attend and to develop a policy regarding the presence of minors at campus events.
Impacts and response
Drag-like performances have been seen across the state at public colleges, whether in designated drag events organized by student groups, in theater performances, and in opera performances.
The ACLU of South Dakota opposes the bill because the government decides what types of theater and entertainment are permissible and that bills like this are too broad in scope and threaten established educational standards, advocacy manager Samantha Chapman said in a statement.
“Drag is a visual expression and celebration of the culture and resilience of the LGBTQ+ and Two Spirit community and is paved in the history of the movement,” Chapman explained. “It’s performance art and entertainment with elements of singing, dancing, lip syncing and costumes.”
Chapman said the bill violates the First Amendment rights of South Dakota students and student organizations to build community and express themselves through drag performances.
“Trying to shape the narrative by suggesting that attraction is inherently lewd or lascivious, or that gay and trans spaces should not exist in public education, is textbook bigotry,” Chapman said.
The bill could also prevent schools from teaching certain works of classic literature depicting the existence of transgender people and drag acts that have long been part of education standards, such as Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night and The Merchant of Venice, Yentle, “Tootsie” and more, Chapman said.
“We don’t want the government deciding which types of theater and entertainment are permissible and which are not beyond what is already an established constitutional norm,” Chapman said. “Bills like this are too broad in scope and threaten established educational standards.”
SDSU student and GSA member Cole Sartell said he doesn’t see how this would apply to the GSA drag show because the event is “neither lascivious nor lascivious.”
In a news release sent Dec. 21, Roberts said the BOR respects the First Amendment, “but none of us are happy that kids are being encouraged to participate in this event on a college campus.”
“We want our campuses to be safe and welcoming places for students, staff and visitors of all ages,” added Roberts.
Libby Scarin, director of campaigns for the ACLU of South Dakota, tweeted on Dec. 8 that the government cannot ban forms on campus or public speech such as drag shows.
“The First Amendment applies to drag shows, period,” Skarin tweeted. “State lawmakers need to stop wasting everyone’s time with patently unconstitutional bills.”