Colorado girls should not have to stay silent to play volleyball

A parent says two Dakota Ridge players were allowed back on court only after agreeing to stop discussing a male athlete; voters decide Prop 134 Nov. 3.

Girls should never have to trade silence for playing time: OutKick reports that, in an Oct. 6 email to Jefferson County Public Schools, Tanna Donalson wrote that her daughter said the coach “pulled three varsity volleyball players aside and told two of them they would be benched for today's game because they had discussed this issue amongst themselves”; Donalson also wrote that “after the two players’ parents met with the athletic director and Mr. Zeman, the players were permitted to play on the condition that they not discuss the issue again”¹. What business does a school have making a girl’s participation depend on dropping a discussion about her own team?

Donalson asked the district: “Please determine what was said, the basis for the proposed benching, and whether participation was conditioned on refraining from discussion of or support for our complaint.” On Oct. 6, Jeffco chief legal counsel Julie Tolleson replied that the Title IX coordinator “can include these matters in her review.”

An email bearing the head coach’s name said: “Over the past several days, we have received multiple reports alleging that your daughter used language toward teammates that could be characterized as bullying.” Jefferson County Schools told OutKick it¹ “” Colorado voters decide Proposition 134 on Nov. 3. The measure would require school teams to be designated by biological sex or as coeducational or mixed, bar males from female-designated teams, and allow a female to join a male-designated team if no female team is offered or available. Parents should be able to challenge the rules governing their daughters’ teams without worrying that the next conversation will cost those daughters a match.

Federal officials found Jeffco violated Title IX

The district’s broader rules had already drawn federal action: the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued findings of noncompliance on March 13, 2026. OCR found that allowing males into girls’ interscholastic athletics denied female athletes equal benefits and opportunities².

Its June 26 enforcement letter also identified violations involving male access to female bathrooms, locker rooms and overnight accommodations. The proposed resolution required policy changes to remedy the violations².

Jeffco instead sued Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Education Department on July 28, challenging the enforcement actions¹. The district chose litigation over accepting the proposed protections for girls.

Jeffco cites privacy but skips the alleged condition

Jeffco told OutKick that privacy rules prevented comment on individual students’ records or athletic participation¹.

Schools should address actual bullying. Thompson reported that the district’s response left the alleged condition unanswered³.

Jeffco Chief Legal Counsel Julie Tolleson had already told Donalson, “District policy prohibits retaliation.”¹ The district can explain whether discussing eligibility threatens a player’s standing without disclosing another child’s records.

Prop 134 would put girls’ teams on clear rules

The rule would reserve female-designated teams for girls and leave coeducational or mixed teams open to all students. Eligibility would follow the male, female or mixed categories¹.

A female student could join a male team when no female team was offered or available for that sport. The text also preserves federal legal protections and accommodations for individuals born with a diagnosed disorder or difference in sex development.

The measure gives the education commissioner a compliance role: notify a noncompliant district and allow reasonable time to comply. Parents would have a written standard against which to challenge a school’s decision.

That is the proper way to settle eligibility: a public rule, applied consistently, with officials responsible for compliance. A coach should coach volleyball, not decide how much discussion of biological reality a player must surrender to remain on the court.

Colorado voters can protect girls’ teams Nov. 3

A yes vote would put the measure’s team-designation and eligibility rules into state law.

Jeffco should also answer the question Donalson put before it: was participation conditioned on silence? A ballot measure does not relieve school officials of their duty to investigate that allegation.

Parents should insist on a direct answer, and school officials should make clear that students may question eligibility rules without retaliation. Girls deserve their teams, and families deserve rules they can read and enforce. Protect girls’ sports: vote yes on Proposition 134.

Colorado girls should not have to stay silent to play volleyball

Federal officials found Jeffco violated Title IX

Jeffco cites privacy but skips the alleged condition

Prop 134 would put girls’ teams on clear rules

Colorado voters can protect girls’ teams Nov. 3

Sources