برچسب: discrimination

  • Students with discrimination complaints left in limbo, months after California civil rights office closed

    Students with discrimination complaints left in limbo, months after California civil rights office closed


    Credit: Carlos Kosienski/Sipa via AP Images

    K.D. was just starting to believe that the racial harassment her daughter had experienced at school for the last three years would finally be addressed.

    Students had called her daughter the N-word, referred to her as a “black monkey” in an Instagram post, made jokes about the Ku Klux Klan and played whipping sounds on their phones during a history lesson about slavery, according to a statement by her mother, identified in court records as K.D.

    “My daughter reported all of these incidents to teachers and was never told whether they were addressed, if at all,” K.D. stated in her declaration.

    K.D. did what many parents do when they believe a school district has violated their child’s right to an education free of discrimination: She filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in May 2023.

    In December, the office proposed a voluntary agreement to the school board of the district. The board requested more information.

    “We were so close,” said K.D., whose daughter is identified as M.W. in court records. “The board was like, ‘Hey, we just need this one last piece.’”

    While K.D. was waiting to hear back, the U.S. Department of Education announced in March that it was cutting its workforce in half. It planned to shutter and lay off staff at seven of its 12 regional branches for its Office for Civil Rights. One of those branches shuttered was in San Francisco, which handled all the cases for the state of California, including K.D.’s.

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to lay off 1,400 employees of the Department of Education, effectively putting the Office of Civil Rights in a state of limbo.

    When the mass terminations were first announced, it didn’t sink in for K.D. what this meant. The attorney on her daughter’s case told K.D. that the office was still waiting to hear from the school district’s board, which was not identified in the court records. If the case wasn’t resolved, the attorney promised to flag it when it was transferred to the Seattle office along with all the other California cases, but that would mean a much longer timeline.

    K.D. recalled: “Essentially, I would have to wait like six months to a year to even hear that someone’s picked up my case.”

    Four months later, K.D. still hasn’t heard from anyone at the Office for Civil Rights. She told EdSource that she’s been left with “a lot of questions” but “little hope.”

    ‘We were already drowning’

    Caseloads at the Office for Civil Rights reached a record high of 22,687 during the Biden administration, according to a 2024 report. That was an 18% increase from the previous year.

    “We were already drowning,” said a San Francisco Office staffer, a member of the AFGE Local 252, impacted by the reduction in force.

    Catherine Lhamon, former assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education under the Biden administration, said her department was always pleading with Congress for more staff to handle the increasing caseloads.

    “There is no universe in which we would have needed fewer people,” said Lhamon, who now serves as executive director of the UC Berkeley School of Law’s Edley Center on Law & Democracy.

    K.D. joined a national suit filed on behalf of other parents and students who have cases pending with the Office for Civil Rights, claiming that “gutting” the workforce and closing regional offices means that caseloads are two to three times higher for remaining staff, effectively halting investigations. It was unsuccessful in securing an injunction to stop the mass terminations.

    In court documents, the Department of Education reported that between March 11 and June 27, OCR received 4,833 complaints, dismissed 3,424, opened 309 for investigation, and resolved 290 with voluntary agreements.

    Lhamon said that represents a fraction of the work under the Biden administration.

    “What we see right now are performative case openings and very little case closings,” Lhamon said.

    The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals halted the mass firings, scheduled to take effect in June, through a preliminary injunction. The suit, joined by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, claimed the terminations were “not supported by any actual reasoning” about how to eliminate waste, but were “part and parcel of President Trump’s and Secretary McMahon’s opposition to the Department of Education’s entire existence.”

    In her successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon denied that the terminations were related to a desire to shutter the Department of Education. Her appeal claimed the preliminary injunction represents “judicial micromanagement of its day-to-day operations.” 

    But McMahon also said in an interview that the firings were “the first step on the road to a total shutdown of the department.” A presidential administration eliminating an agency established by Congress poses a “grave” threat to the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, according to a dissent by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

    “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote.

    Cases in limbo

    M.W.’s case was one of 772 in California pending before the Office for Civil Rights when the San Francisco branch was shuttered, according to a site that has not been updated since President Donald Trump took office. 

    Advocates say the office provides a venue to address a discrimination complaint, especially for those who haven’t had success appealing to their district or state and cannot afford to hire a personal attorney. 

    “No one’s going to OCR if they have any other option,” said Johnathan Smith, an attorney with the National Center for Youth Law, the Oakland-based nonprofit that represented K.D. in her suit. “The reason why K.D. turned to OCR was because she didn’t have options. And so for this administration to literally pull out the rug from under families, from children who are at their lowest point of need, is beyond cruel.”

    The Department of Education updated its list of recent voluntary resolutions, which include seven cases in California during Trump’s second term.

    There were also two letters addressed to State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and the California Interscholastic Federation, involving transgender athletes’ eligibility to participate in school sports.

    The other resolutions involve agreements regarding disability cases, including those at San Diego State University, as well as the Belmont-Redwood Shores, Cupertino Union, Inglewood Unified and Tehachapi Unified school districts. Letters about the resolutions were signed by attorneys with phone numbers that contain Washington, D.C., or Seattle-based area codes.

    It’s unclear whether most of the nearly 800 cases in California pending before the Office for Civil Rights when Trump took office have been addressed. The department did not respond to requests for comment.

    Most deal with disability: the right to a free and appropriate public education, harassment or discipline.

    The office also handles discrimination claims filed by students and parents or staff on the basis of gender, race, age, nationality or language. Over three-quarters of the pending cases in California deal with the TK-12 system — the rest are postsecondary.  The office investigates discrimination claims at the state level.

    “No state is immune for the need for a federal backstop against that harm,” said Lhamon. “We have had six-decade bipartisan recognition that it is true.”

    ‘Speaking her truth does matter’

    M.W. will be a junior when she returns to school in the fall. Her mother, K.D., told EdSource that her daughter continues to be bullied by students and the issue remains unaddressed by the school district. 

    “The driving force for me has been just like her, knowing that what she has to say and her speaking her truth does matter,” K.D. said. “I want her to know, no matter how long this has taken — or will take — that it does matter.”

    Schools are where students learn about academic subjects, but also how society functions. 

    “Schools are where we teach people how to participate in democracy,” Lhamon said.

    She worries that if the federal system for addressing discrimination breaks down, students will receive the message that discrimination is allowed.

    “If you are harmed and no one speaks up for you, what you take home is that it was OK,” Lhamon said. “That’s the worst part of the lesson.”





    Source link

  • Legislature must tackle sex discrimination and harassment on college campuses

    Legislature must tackle sex discrimination and harassment on college campuses


    Yin Yang /iStock

    Addressing and preventing sex discrimination and sexual harassment on college campuses continues to be one of the most foundational challenges to improving campus climate at higher education institutions in our country.

    In the fall of 2021, as the Biden-Harris administration began its reexamination of Title IX, the federal regulation that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education, the Assembly Higher Education Committee also began its own reexamination of California’s policies to address and prevent sex discrimination and sexual harassment in higher education.

    Three years later, the Higher Education Committee released a 30-plus page report that revealed we are not doing nearly enough to support our public higher education institutions to create an inclusive and safe campus culture for our students, faculty and staff.

    While each public higher education institution does have a nondiscrimination policy in place, it is clear that our campus communities do not trust these institutions to prevent nor properly handle sex discrimination and sexual harassment on campus. According to interviews conducted by the committee and various surveys of students and faculty, campus communities feel that current policy focuses on protecting higher education institutions and not survivors of sexual discrimination and harassment.

    It is the responsibility of campus leadership to provide our students with a safe and inclusive environment; however, the Legislature also has a responsibility to support our institutions in that mission, and to hold them accountable if they fall short.

    My bills, Assembly Bill (AB) 2047 and AB 2048 are a necessary step that the Legislature must take in order to support California’s higher education institutions and its campus communities.

    These two bills are a part of an ambitious, 12-bill legislative package, authored by myself and seven of my legislative colleagues, and predominantly based on recommendations from the committee’s report.

    The package as a whole is imperative in order to foster cultural change, accountability and trust at our higher education institutions. AB 2047 and AB 2048 focus on shifting campus culture and renewing trust.

    AB 2047 will establish an independent systemwide Title IX office to assist with monitoring compliance throughout all three of California’s higher education segments, and AB 2048 will establish an independent Title IX office on each California State University and University of California campus, and in each community college district.

    These offices, both on campus and at the systemwide level, will provide supportive measures to survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination and adjudicate cases in a clear and transparent manner. Furthermore, these bills will work in tandem with the overall legislative package to provide reporting measures to ensure the higher education institutions are preventing and addressing cases of sex discrimination.

    The importance of creating an identifiable authority that will properly adjudicate cases of sex discrimination and implement preventative measures cannot be minimized. These bills will renew community trust in our public institutions and establish a campus culture primed to detect, prevent and address all forms of sex discrimination and harassment with supportive measures and restorative justice. 

    AB 2047 and AB 2048 will provide substantial change for survivors of sexual harassment, but they will also result in substantial monetary cost from the state’s general fund, possibly costing millions of dollars, in order to establish and staff these offices.

    As we are confronted with a significant budget deficit this year, difficult policy decisions will be made, but these bills should be a priority for the Legislature.

    Fundamental change is costly, and as we assess the true costs of these bills and the impact they will have on our state, we must also not forget to consider the cost of doing nothing: the human cost of students who do not feel safe at these institutions and may not be able to experience all that higher education has to offer. The cost of those who carry invisible wounds and do not achieve their full educational potential.

    I am a firm believer in the power and promise of higher education and its ability to transform lives and communities. No student should be deprived of that power and promise due to sex discrimination or sexual harassment.

    We are falling short of our responsibility to these campus communities by further allowing this status quo of handling complaints through costly monetary settlements and lawsuits to remain.

    We cannot let this continue.

    •••

    Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) represents California’s 49th Assembly District and serves as chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • How to resist Trump’s order imposing classroom censorship and discrimination 

    How to resist Trump’s order imposing classroom censorship and discrimination 


    The LGBTQ+ community rallies in solidarity, opposing the Social Studies Alive! ban in Temecula Valley Unified in June 2023.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    This week’s executive order by President Donald Trump disingenuously titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” is a brazen assault on our educational freedoms and civil rights. The order directs the secretary of education and other department heads to develop a plan to terminate federal funds that directly or indirectly support classroom instruction on systemic racism or provide supportive school services and protections to transgender youth. 

    The order’s sweeping definition of what it calls “discriminatory equity ideology” could lead to a ban on teaching about slavery, segregation, redlining, voter suppression and other historical realities that continue to shape life and opportunity in America today. The order could also result in a ban on ethnic studies, gender studies, queer studies and other rigorous academic disciplines that prepare students to think critically and to live in a multicultural, multiracial society. 

    Equally troubling is the order’s attack on transgender students and the educators who support them. By directing the attorney general and federal prosecutors to coordinate investigations and prosecutions against educators who provide basic support to transgender students, like psychological counseling, or who use the student’s preferred pronouns, the order puts already vulnerable students at grave risk. 

    Put this all together and what results is a stunning proposal for a federal takeover of local education, where the president of the United States dictates what local schools can teach and which type of student belongs in our classrooms. It is also another attempt by President Trump and many of his right-wing supporters to purge our nation’s history of uncomfortable truths and erase the lived experience of people of color, women and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

    While the potential consequences of this order are staggering to imagine, the most effective way to resist it is clear: Schools, educators and communities should not cave in to threats and intimidation and rush to voluntarily comply with this likely unconstitutional and unlawful order. Stay the course, partner with students, families and community organizations, and resist unless and until the courts have authorized any aspect of these outlandish proposals. 

    Trump tried something similar and failed in his last days of his first presidential term by issuing Executive Order 13950, which prohibited federal agencies and grant recipients from conducting trainings that included “divisive concepts” such as systemic racism, white privilege and unconscious bias. The order was blocked by a court in Northern California on First Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds and later rescinded by the Biden administration. 

    Similar attempts to censor classroom discussion and discriminate against transgender students have also faced legal challenges in states across the country, and most challenges have prevailed. Courts have generally protected local control and academic freedom as essential to democracy and have struck down restrictions on federal funding that essentially coerce states to the point of compulsion. Multiple federal statutes dating back to the founding of the U.S. Department of Education, including the bipartisan-supported Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, also prohibit federal officials from controlling specific instructional content or curriculum, and expressly leave such decisions to state and local officials. 

    Even if there are legal setbacks, it will take time, perhaps years, for the courts to resolve these issues. In the meantime, schools have a legal and moral obligation to protect all students and provide an inclusive and honest education. They should stand firm while legal challenges proceed.

    But the fight for educational justice belongs to all of us, not just to lawyers — and it requires a broader movement. Students, parents, educators and community leaders must speak out and stand firm against this dangerous attack on our values. Together, we must continue to make the public case for inclusive education. This includes sharing stories of how discussions of history and identity have transformed our classrooms and our life journeys. Documenting the positive and life-saving impact of supporting LGBTQ+ students. Helping parents understand why preparing diverse teachers to work with students of all backgrounds makes education better for everyone. And importantly, we must document the harm this order would cause to students’ educational experiences. These stories and voices — not just legal arguments in court — will ultimately determine whether we can build schools that truly serve all students.

    In the meantime, stand firm, keep supporting all students and continue teaching truth. 

    •••

    Guillermo Mayer is president and CEO of Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity and climate justice.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link