برچسب: Conservative

  • LGBTQ+ students in conservative crosshairs

    LGBTQ+ students in conservative crosshairs


    Parents rights supporters attend a rally in Simi Valley on Sept. 26. the night before the Republican presidential primary debate.

    Credit: Courtesy of Rebecca Holz / California Policy Center

    LGBTQ+ students are the latest target in a campaign to promote conservative policies in California schools under the banner of parental rights. Over the last two months, seven school boards have passed policies that require school district staff to inform parents if their children are transgender.

    Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, Murrieta Valley Unified and Temecula Valley Unified in Riverside County, Orange Unified in Orange County, Anderson Union High School District in Shasta County, and Rocklin Unified and Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Placer County all require that teachers and other school staff inform parents, generally within three days, if a student asks to use a different name or pronoun, or to take part in a program, or to use a facility associated with a gender other than the one they had at birth.

    Other school districts will follow, predicted Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville City Unified board member and conservative activist. Almost every school district in Placer County, near Sacramento, is expected to consider the policy, he said.

    Proponents of the parental notification policies have said that parents have the right to know what is going on with their children at school and that minors do not have a right to privacy. Opponents say these policies could endanger already vulnerable students who should be able to decide when they want to come out to their parents.

    The flurry of parental notification policies are dividing communities, pitting teachers against students and creating fear and anxiety for LGBTQ+ students. Teachers in those districts find themselves choosing between their jobs and their relationships with students. Some worry if they follow the district policy, and break state law, they could end up in court.

    California’s parental notification board policies have their origin in Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, which was denied a committee hearing at the state Capitol in April. Since then, Essayli has worked with parents rights groups and attorneys to write a model board policy they would like school boards to use in their districts. Each community can customize the model policy to their standards, Essayli said.

    Zachreson, founder of Protect Kids California, is part of that effort. He ran for school board after creating the Reopen California Schools Facebook page for parents frustrated by school closures during the pandemic, and later by masks and vaccination mandates.

    “We will take it district by district,” he said of the parental notification policy.

    Culture wars result in frustration, hostility

    The parental notification policies have divided communities, leaving anger in their wake. On Sept. 6, hundreds of people overflowed the school board chamber at Rocklin Unified in Placer County. Speakers in support and opposition to notifying parents that their children are transgender gave heated and emotional testimony, both sides accusing the other of busing in supporters from outside the community.

    “Look at the division in this room and outside this building tonight,” said Travis Mougeotte, a high school teacher and president of the Rocklin Unified teachers union. “It’s hard to be excellent when we’re focused on things that have nothing to do with the classroom, that have nothing to do with education, have nothing to do with making our classrooms and schools safer and better, inclusive environments for our students.”

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    LGBTQ+ community rallies in solidarity, opposing the Social Studies Alive! ban in Temecula Valley Unified.

    One speaker in opposition to the board policy called it a solution in search of a problem, while others accused the board members of proposing it only to advance their political agenda.

    Board member Tiffany Saathoff disagreed. “I have had parents, I have had teachers, I have had staff members request this policy,” she said.

    LGBTQ+ students anxious about being outed

    These cultural conflicts come on top of a backdrop of anxiety and stress as students settle back into their classrooms after the Covid-19 pandemic, said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education at UC Berkeley.

    “I personally have a friend who would not be safe in his home if he came out to his parents as trans,” Asher Palmer, a Rocklin High School student who identifies as LGBTQ, said at the Sept. 6 meeting. “He would not be safe. His siblings would not be kind to him, and his parents would not be kind to him. … I hope you take my words into consideration and understand how unsafe children could become in their own households if this action is approved.”

    Many speakers highlighted the high rate of suicides among LGBTQ+ students. A national survey by the LGBTQ mental health nonprofit Trevor Project in 2022 found that 41% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered killing themselves in the past year. Transgender, nonbinary and people of color reported even higher rates. Less than 40% of LGBTQ youth felt emotionally supported by their families. About half of the 28,000 students surveyed said they felt their schools were gender-affirming, and those who did reported lower rates of attempting suicide.

    Rocklin resident Kurt Weidman spoke in support of the policy. “We believe we are protecting the children from those who destroy their innocence and exploit them for their own purposes,” he said. “On the whole, parents are the best protectors of children and have the natural right and duty for the care, custody and control of their children. Children in the main are naturally incapable of exercising self-governance until they reach the age of majority.”

    The day after the Rocklin Unified vote, many students and teachers wore rainbow ribbons to show support for transgender students. Teacher Mougeotte said that despite the outpouring of support, students in marginalized groups, such as transgender students, were quieter than usual that first day.

    A positive outcome of the debate was that students who may not have discussed gay rights before were having conversations about how the policy, how it affects their classmates and how it could affect other communities of students in the future, Mougeotte said.

    California Democratic leaders fight back

    Attorney General Rob Bonta says parental notification policies break state law and violate students’ civil rights and their right to privacy. He filed a lawsuit against Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County on Aug. 28. Bonta was granted a preliminary injunction to halt the parental notification policy to protect the safety of transgender and gender-nonconforming students while the court case proceeds.

    “The battle line has been drawn here,” Essayli told EdSource. “Somehow the government has decided they are the arbiters of information, and they decide what information parents can be trusted with and which they can’t.”

    Essayli said he would like to see the case get to the Supreme Court.

    “The court will reaffirm our rights and that kids are the domain of their parents and that the government cannot decide what information they can and cannot get,” he said.

    In another decision two weeks after the stay in the Chino Valley case, federal Judge Roger Benitez granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the Escondido Union School District from enforcing state guidance prohibiting school staff from informing parents if their children are transgender. It also forbids the district or state from disciplining the two teachers who are suing Escondido Union for requiring them to keep transgender students’ identities secret.

    Last week, Attorney General Bonta sent guidance to all California school superintendents and school board members reminding them of the Chino Valley Unified restraining order and that the state Department of Justice’s intent to enforce the law remains unchanged. A hearing in the Chino Valley Unified case is set for Oct. 13.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the state Legislature are pushing back against conservative board policies. Last week, the governor signed legislation that provides all-gender restrooms on school campuses and prohibits book banning and censorship of instructional materials. He also signed a bill requiring schools to train secondary school staff to support LGBTQ+ students and another that would establish a state advisory task force to identify and address the needs of LGBTQ+ students.

    Teachers widely disapprove of notification policies

    Teachers and union leaders have come out as major opponents of parental notification policies, saying they would drive a wedge between educators and students and endanger already vulnerable students. Some teachers in Rocklin Unified, including Mougeotte, say they simply aren’t going to do it.

    “Why are we creating an environment that’s unwelcoming to students?” Mougeotte asked the Rocklin board on Sept. 6. “No matter what happens here tonight, kids that walk into my classroom tomorrow will no longer feel as safe and protected as they did today, no matter what. That’s on you. That’s not on me.”

    Teachers at districts with these policies worry they could lose their jobs if they don’t comply. They are also concerned they could end up in court or have their credentials suspended if they disobey federal and state laws, and policies.

    Commission on Teacher Credentialing officials could not give a definitive answer about whether a teacher would risk suspension or loss of their credentials if they followed board policies that are at odds with state law. Each report of misconduct is assessed to determine whether it should be reviewed by the credentials committee, said Anita Fitzhugh, spokesperson for the commission. The committee would determine whether to recommend an action to the commission, she said.

    Parental rights galvanizing Republican Party

    Across the country, conservatives — initially energized by unpopular pandemic school closures and safety restrictions — are using LGBTQ+ issues and critical race theory to rally supporters. In California, the Republican Party — which has struggled to win state seats for 30 years — has also turned its attention to local races, recruiting, training and endorsing candidates for school boards.

    Parental rights is the overarching issue for the Republican Party, but right now it is focused on the parental notification issue, Essayli said.

    “This is an issue we want to run on in 2024,” he said. “Parental rights transcend culture, language and faith. We had every faith group at the board meeting last night. It’s an 80/20 issue. I welcome this fight. I want the voters to know going into next year.”

    Parent rights proponents say school districts should make decisions for their students and not the state. They say parents are being ignored locally, but at the same time, they are taking direction from well-funded lobbies in Florida, Fuller said.

    “That cuts into their credibility,” he said.

    Parental notification could be on the ballot next year

    Protect Kids California has submitted a statewide proposition to the Attorney General’s Office that would require all state school districts to report transgender students to their parents, no matter what the community in that district or its school board wants. If they manage to collect 550,000 signatures it will go on the ballot in November 2024.

    “Generally, we will default to local school boards, but the issue is that the data we are seeing is harming kids,” said Zachreson, a co-founder of the organization.

    The organization also will ask the public to sign petitions for proposed ballot measures that would prohibit people who were born male from competing in women’s sporting events and another that would prohibit health care providers from prescribing hormones that stop or delay puberty or alter a minor’s appearance for the purpose of changing genders.

    Fuller thinks the initiatives will gain traction.

    “Especially when you have big Republican donors,” he said. “If you buy enough people in front of grocery stores pushing petitions, it’s likely they will get this on the ballot. It will have some appeal on the surface level.”

    What will conservative school boards target next?

    Teachers are worried about what conservative-majority school boards will turn to next.

    “We are really concerned about book bans,” said Mike Patterson, a California Teachers Association board member and South Lake Tahoe High School teacher. “As teachers, we have some academic freedom. We need to stay within the state frameworks, but we still have some academic freedom when we teach. I’m sure they are going to go after academic freedom and want us to go back to scripted learning, which we did a decade ago and was an abject failure. I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that is in our future.”

    Essayli is eying a California law that allows children as young as 12 years old to obtain medical treatment without parental consent in certain circumstances, such as obtaining birth control, treatment of communicable diseases, mental health treatment and treatment for drug or alcohol-related problems.

    But he’s focusing on the parental notification issue for now. “ The school board issue right now is sort of the flashpoint,” he said. “ It’s an issue that is easy to understand and articulate.”

     





    Source link

  • School board results show wins on conservative and progressive sides

    School board results show wins on conservative and progressive sides


    Political signs for the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified school board are on display at an intersection in Yorba Linda.

    Credit: Courtesy of Kevin Reed

    Election results for California’s school boards are still not final in most counties, but the dust is settling in some of the state’s most hotly contested races.

    This year, California teachers unions and conservative groups intensified efforts to get their favored candidates elected to district school boards. Their primary difference of opinion — educational policies on gender identity and racial equity.

    In June, voters recalled Temecula Valley Unified school board President Joseph Komrosky — one of a three-member conservative block that passed controversial policies to reject textbooks with materials that included references to gay rights activist Harvey Milk, ban critical race theory and require teachers and school staff to notify parents if a child appears to be transgender. 

    But Komrosky and a new conservative majority could be back in January. As of Thursday evening, he and candidates Melinda Anderson and Emil Roger Barham — all endorsed by the Riverside County Republican Party — were winning their races.

    Komrosky is narrowly edging out opponent David Sola in the race for Trustee Area 4, with 51.21% of the vote — a little more than 300 votes — as of about 5:30 p.m. Thursday. Sola is endorsed by the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the district’s teachers union.

    “During this historic election season, I’m confident Temecula will choose trustees devoted to prioritizing academics, honoring parents, protecting children, and (keeping) divisive ideology out of the classroom,” said Jennifer Wiersma, who was part of the board’s conservatively held majority, in a statement to EdSource. Wiersma represents Trustee Area 3.

    Riverside County still had 350,000 mail-in and conditional ballots to be counted on Wednesday.

    The seats of the two board members who pushed back against the conservative majority — Steven Schwartz and Allison Barclay — are also up for election. Currently, Schwartz leads challenger Jon Cobb with 51.64% of the vote in Trustee Area 5, while Barclay is losing with 41.50% of the votes to Anderson’s 58.50% in Trustee Area 1.

    The Area 4 and Area 2 seats have been empty since Komrosky’s recall in June and the resignation of board member Danny Gonzalez last December.

    Both Cobb and Komrosky are supported by the Inland Empire Family PAC, a conservative Christian political action committee. Cobb is also endorsed by the Riverside County Republican Party.

    Barclay, Schwartz and Gary Oddi are endorsed by the teachers union. Oddi is running against Barham and Angela Talarzyk for the Trustee Area 2 seat.

    San Jose Unified results mixed

    Nicole Gribstad, endorsed by the Santa Clara County branch of Moms for Liberty, could take the Trustee Area 5 seat on the San Jose Unified school board, despite heavy campaigning against her by the teachers union. 

    Moms for Liberty is a national group that has supported efforts to bar schools from teaching about race, gender and sexuality. If Gribstad wins, she will be the only conservative member of the board, said San Jose Teachers Association President Renata Sanchez.  

    Gribstad is leading with 44.93% of the votes, only 870 votes more than union-endorsed candidate Lenka Wright.

    “We are not quite ready to call the race yet,” Sanchez said.  

    The county had about 284,000 ballots left to count at 10 a.m. Thursday, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

    “(If she wins) we will continue to do everything we can to protect our students from these policies, including working with the board to make sure they understand how policies impact the work at the site level, ensure that our policies and processes are in alignment with those from CSBA (California School Boards Association),” Sanchez said. 

    “The parental rights policies, book bans and anti-DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies are coming from a loud minority, and are not indicative of what the community as a whole desires for their children,” she said.

    Teresa Castellanos, the union’s other endorsement in the San Jose Unified race, seems likely to take the Trustee Area 1 seat with an overwhelming 59.47% of the vote compared to 40.53% for Chris Webb.

    Orange Unified incumbents winning

    Orange Unified School District incumbents Ann Page, Sara Pelly and Stephen Glass seem to have handily won re-election in Orange County. All three incumbents had between 72% to 80% of the votes in their trustee areas by 5 p.m. Wednesday.

    The county reported there were about 364,000 ballots left to process on Thursday evening.

    Pelly, in Trustee Area 4, and Glass, in Trustee Area 7, completed the terms of Madison Miner and Rick Ledesma, who were recalled in April, after Superintendent Gunn Marie Hansen was abruptly fired without explanation. Neither Miner nor Ledesma sought re-election.

    Orange Unified recall organizer Darshan Smaaladen said interest in local races has grown since culture wars made their way into school district boardrooms. 

    “We have seen greater interest in the high quality and motivation of school board candidates, which is a great thing,” Smaaladen said in a statement to EdSource. “Greater interest equals greater engagement; public schools shine brighter in the light of transparency and truth from this interest.”

    Santa Ana Unified surprise

    In what could be an upset, special education teacher and conservative candidate Brenda Lebsack is edging out incumbent Rigo Rodriquez for the Trustee Area 1 seat on the Santa Ana school board, 52.16% to 47.84%. 

    The district has three seats up for election. Valerie Magdaleno is handily beating opponent Lloyd Boucher-Reyes, 72.5% to 24.75% in Trustee Area 2, while incumbent Alfonso Alvarez has 59% of the vote in a three-way race for the Area 3 seat.

    Recalled Sunol Glen trustee losing

    School board policies focusing on gender identification and LGBTQ+ rights continue to be a hot-button issue in some districts this election season.

    Ryan Jergensen played a role in passing conservative policies associated with gender identity and the display of flags, including the Pride flag, while a trustee for the Sunol Glen Unified School District in Alameda County. Now, he is trying to reclaim his board seat.

    On Wednesday at 1 a.m. he was losing to Erin Choin, 41% to 59%.

    LA Unified filling three seats

    The Los Angeles Unified School District board will go through a drastic change in leadership this election cycle — with three of its seven seats up for grabs. 

    Board President Jackie Goldberg, representing District 5, along with board member George McKenna from District 1, announced their retirement last fall after decades in education. Their seats — along with the District 3 seat currently occupied by board Vice President Scott Schmerelson, are on the ballot this November. 

    United Teachers Los Angeles, the district’s teachers union, and charter school organizations have been battling over board seats. The union mobilized its 39,000 members and ran campaigns in two of the districts, said Julie Van Winkle, vice president of the union.

    As of 4:34 p.m. Thursday, all three union-endorsed candidates — Sherlett Hendy Newbill, Schmerelson and Karla Griego — were winning their races. Only the District 3 race between Schmerelson, 51.91%, and Dan Chang, 48.09%, was close.

    District 7’s seat was on the ballot last March — and board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin secured her next term with support from 55.91% of voters. 

    In addition to deciding the makeup of LAUSD’s school board, voters determined the fate of a substantive $9 billion school construction bond to upgrade LAUSD school facilities. It needs at least 55% of the vote to pass, and has secured just over 66% of the vote so far. 

    West Contra Costa race close

    Early returns in the West Contra Costa Unified race show incumbent Otheree Christian trailing challenger Guadalupe Enllana by about 400 votes, according to results published early Wednesday morning. Enllana had nearly 53% of the vote. 

    Enllana, a member of the district’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) committee, has been critical of the district’s financial management and the school board’s failure to adopt an LCAP, which in turn prevented the district from passing a budget by the deadline.

    Otheree, a graduate of the district’s Kennedy High School and a substitute teacher, was elected in 2020. As trustee, he abstained from voting on the accountability plan because the document lacked transparency and failed to include parent feedback.





    Source link

  • A Brilliant Decision by a Conservative Judge Rebukes Trump Administration

    A Brilliant Decision by a Conservative Judge Rebukes Trump Administration


    Every once in a while, a judicial decision is so beautifully written and so well crafted that it should be read in full, not summarized.

    Such a decision was rendered yesterday by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth District Court of Appeals in the case of Kilmer Abrega Garcia. Judge Wilkinson was appointed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Reagan in 1984. He is an old-school Republican who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. Remember them? People like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who are reviled by MAGA. To MAGA, whatever Trump wants overrides both the Constitution and the rule of law.

    Abrego Garcia is one of the 238 men picked up by ICE and whisked away to a terrorism prison in El Salvador. None of those men had a hearing or due process. A district court judge (appointed by President George W. Bush) ordered the government to turn the flights around and bring the men in three planes back to U.S. soil. The administration ignored his ruling. Another federal district judge ordered the Justice Department to bring him back. However, the Trump Justice Department insists that the U.S. has no jurisdiction in El Salvador.

    His case and plight have sparked nationwide demonstrations against the government for failing to provide him due process and refusing to bring him back despite the orders of two federal district judges and the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 that the government must “facilitate” his return while showing due deference to the President’s control of foreign affairs.

    Here is the full decision. It is not long (seven pages) and it is great reading.

    If you want to read its crucial reasoning (without the legal precedents referenced), here is the core of the decision:

    “Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature.

    While we fully respect the executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision. It is difficult, in some cases, to get to the very heart of the matter—but in this case, it is not hard at all.

    The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims, in essence, that because it has rid itself of custody, that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

    The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. In other words, if it thinks it’s got such good factual proof of that, what is it so worried about? It can present it, and it should prevail in getting him removed from this country.

    Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongfully or mistakenly deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong right?

    Let me just repeat that. Why then should it not make what was wrong right?

    The Supreme Court’s decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch.

    The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government ‘to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’

    Facilitate is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken—as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art.

    We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by administrative agency and contained in mere policy directive.

    Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is remove any domestic barriers to his return—that is, the government said, ‘You know what? If he can make his way to our shores, then we have to take him in’—is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.

    Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prison that the withholding order forbids, and further to do so in disregard of a court order that the government, not so subtly, spurns. Facilitation does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would facilitate foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood….”

    The executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport. But with powers come restraints. If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? That threat—even if not the actuality—would always be present.

    And the executive’s obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’—that’s a quote from the Constitution, Article II—would lose its meaning.

    Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran government disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. We are told that neither government has the power to act. That result will be to leave matters generally—and Abrego Garcia specifically—in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.

    The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort and mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the executive must be reciprocated by the executive’s respect for the courts.

    Too often today, this has not been the case—as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.”

    It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.”

    This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of thedecisions of the Federal Courts.” Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words,“ [u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.”

    Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragicgap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

    It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

    The most ominous words in this decision are the last five. “…While there is still time.

    This respected conservative jurist recognizes that the goal of the Trump administration is to diminish and undermine the federal courts and to make himself an emperor.



    Source link