Sacramento State student assistants and employees celebrate the official vote for the undergraduate student assistants to unionize.
Ashley A. Smith/EdSource
This story was updated at 1:10 p.m. Friday to include more comments from student workers and CSU chancellor’s office..
Student assistants and workers in the California State University system announced Friday that they had voted in favor of unionizing.
The students across the 23 campuses voted in favor of organizing one of the largest student worker organizations in the country so they could fight for better pay, working conditions, sick and paid leave, and more work hours.
The students overwhelmingly voted 7,050 to 202 in favor of joining the CSU Employees Union (CSUEU).
“This is for all of us and for all of our futures,” said Cameron Macedonio, a student assistant at CSU Fullerton. “Student assistants were increasingly fed up with the CSU administration’s treatment of us. They undervalue us. On one hand, they act as if we’re dispensable, but on the other hand, they expect us to do the work of full-time staff but for minimum wages and no benefits.”
Student assistants often work for minimum wage, are limited to 20 hours or less a week, and don’t receive sick or paid leave.
Danny Avitia, a senior majoring in sociology and leadership development at San Diego State, said he’s found it difficult to survive on $16.50 an hour while working in the campus Office of Employee Engagement. He assists the director of that office with organizing events, newsletters, graphics, media and communications.
Avitia said he’s had to take on two more jobs and whenever he’s gotten sick, he “shows up to work and gets everyone sick” because he doesn’t receive any leave or paid time off.
Unionizing “means better access to discounts like parking and transit,” he said. “It means that I can fight for a better living wage because, again, meeting the basic needs of people is simply not enough here in California anymore.”
Now, they will need to decide what they want to bargain for, assemble a negotiating team and leadership, and present their demands to the Cal State administration. As part of the CSUEU, they’ll have assistance from that organization and the Service Employees International Union or SEIU.
“With 20,000 student assistants joining CSUEU’s 16,000 CSU staff members, university management will no longer be able to divide students and staff or exploit student labor to degrade staff jobs,” said Catherine Hutchinson, president of CSUEU. “Joining together is a win for students, for staff, and for all Californians who have a stake in the CSU’s mission.”
Many of the student assistants feel unionizing was just one step in a long process to better pay and working conditions. They all recently watched the California Faculty Association, which represents 29,000 professors and, lecturers go on strike twice for a better contact.
“There will be some struggles that will come with it,” said Alejandro Carrillo, an international business junior at San Diego State. “We just had the CFA strike and saw how hard it was for them to fight and the struggles that came with it. I’m not expecting anything less than that for student workers.”
In the meantime, the chancellor’s office said it would maintain the current standards and requirements for student assistants.
“The CSU has a long history of providing on-campus jobs to students through student assistant positions, which give our students the opportunity to gain valuable work experience while they pursue their degrees,” said Leora Freedman, CSU’s vice chancellor for human resources. “The CSU respects the decision of student assistants to form a union and looks forward to bargaining in good faith with the newly formed CSUEU student assistant unit.”
California Student Journalism Corps member Jazlyn Dieguez, a fourth-year journalism student at San Diego State University, contributed to this story.
Public speakers address UC leaders during a March UC regents meeting at UCLA.
Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource
The University of California’s board of regents has delayed voting until May on a controversial policy proposal that would restrict faculty from using some university websites to make opinionated andpolitical statements, such as opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza.
The proposal would ban faculty departments and other academic units from using the homepages of their department websites to make “discretionary statements,” which the proposal defines as comments on “local, regional, global or national” events or issues and not related to daily departmental operations.
In the days leading up to the meeting, the UC system’s Academic Senate had asked the regents to reject or at least delay a vote and expressed concerns that the proposal would limit freedom of speech.
The policy was scheduled for a vote Wednesday during a joint meeting of the regents’ academic affairs and compliance and audit committees. But regents voted to delay a final decision until their next meeting in May. Before that meeting, they plan to collect additional comments from the Academic Senate and other regents.
“People will submit their issues that they have. The Academic Senate will do their thing. We’ll hear everyone’s point of view. We’ll modify if we need to modify. And maybe we could just personally commit that we’ll vote in the next meeting,” said regent Jay Sures, one of the regents responsible for bringing the proposal forward. Sures is vice-chairman of United Talent Agency, a powerful entertainment and sports-related firm.
Regent Jay Sures, seen during Wednesday’s board meeting, backs a proposal to curb opinionated comments on academic department homepages.Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource
UC systemwide President Michael Drake also supported delaying the vote, saying he doesn’t think the policy is finished and that the university “needs to get it right” before moving forward.
The policy doesn’t mention a specific issue, but many faculty see it as an attempt to limit what they can say about Israel’s war in Gaza. The consideration of the policy, which has been in the works for months, comes after UC’s Ethnic Studies Faculty Council and several faculty departments have criticized Israel over the war. In addition, when the policy was first discussed at January’s regents meeting, regent Hadi Makarechian said the board was considering the policy because “some people were making political statements related to Hamas and Palestinians.”
UC leaders who support the policy have said it is needed to ensure that the opinions of faculty departments aren’t misinterpreted as representing the university as a whole.
It’s unclear whether the policy will get enough support among the board when it does go to a vote. Some regents voiced concern Wednesday about the proposal’s possible impacts.
Merhawi Tesfai, a graduate student at UCLA and a student regent, said during the meeting that he doesn’t think the regents should be setting a systemwide policy.
“I think each campus should be free to decide on what policies they’re going to be doing, what guidelines they’re going to set around this issue,” he added.
Another regent, Keith Ellis, said he was concerned that the policy could be used “as a weapon” against faculty.
If faculty departments or other academic units, such as research centers, do want to make opinionated statements, the proposal still would allow them to publish those elsewhere on UC web pages, just not on the homepages. Those statements would also need to include a disclaimer explaining that the opinions don’t represent the university as a whole. The policy also allows faculty and groups of faculty to publish their opinions on private websites.
Last week, the Academic Senate formally requested that the regents reject the proposal or at least delay a vote. The Senate’s Academic Council voted unanimously, 19-0, in making that request to the regents. In a letter to the regents, Academic Senate leaders said the policy has the potential to “limit free speech and impinge on academic freedom,” among other concerns.
An overflow crowd waits outside of Wednesday’s meeting of the UC board of regents at UCLA.Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource
The policy was updated after the Senate submitted its comments, and did include some changes addressing the concerns raised. The latest draft of the policy, for example, includes a definition of the types of statements that would be banned, whereas the previous version did not.
In remarks to the regents, Academic Senate Chair James Steintrager said the latest version was a step in the right direction but lamented that the Senate had only two days to review the latest version before the meeting. He urged the regents to delay a vote and send the draft policy out for further review by the Senate.
Trevor Griffey, a lecturer at UCLA and a vice president for the union representing UC’s non-tenure track faculty, wrote on social media on Wednesday that the union is worried about how the policy would be enforced. The union “believes that enforcement of this vague standard cannot be done consistently, and is likely to increase interest group pressure” on faculty departments, Griffey wrote.
Griffey also said the regents were trying to bypass the Senate on this issue. Rather than approving a new policy, Senate leaders have asked the regents to adopt recommendations made by the Senate in 2022.
The Senate determined at that time that UC faculty departments have the right to “make statements on University-owned websites” as long as the statements don’t take positions on elections. The Senate, like the regents, also recommended that those statements include disclaimers that the departments don’t speak for the university as a whole. But the Senate didn’t discourage statements from appearing on departmental homepages.
“These recommendations were based on comprehensive consultation with faculty on the ten campuses, as well as with UC Legal consultants. They are intended to guide departments whose members opt to post statements to do so in ways that minimize downsides and that do not infringe on academic freedom,” the Senate leaders wrote in their letter to the regents last week.
Since last fall, some faculty departments have included statements on their websites criticizing Israel. The homepage for UC Santa Cruz’s critical race and ethnic studies department website has a statement calling on “scholars, researchers, organizers, and administrators worldwide” to take action “to end Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza.”
In a letter last fall, the systemwide UC Ethnic Studies Faculty Council also criticized UC leaders for their public statements following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel. The council said UC’s statements lacked context because they didn’t acknowledge Israeli violence against Palestine, including “75 years of settler colonialism and globally acknowledged apartheid.” The faculty also said UC’s statements “irresponsibly wield charges of terrorism.”
Sures, the regent who supports the proposal, responded with a letter of his own, saying the council’s letter was “rife with falsehoods about Israel and seeks to legitimize and defend the horrific savagery of the Hamas massacre.” He also pledged to do “everything in my power” to protect “everyone in our extended community from your inflammatory and out of touch rhetoric.” The faculty responded by criticizing Sures for not condemning Israeli violence and calling on him to resign.
Public speakers address UC leaders during a March UC regents meeting at UCLA.
Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource
The University of California’s board of regents on Thursday again postponed a vote on a controversial policy to restrict faculty departments from making opinionated statements on the homepages of university websites. The regents could next consider the policy at their July meeting in San Francisco.
The proposal was initially introduced after some faculty departments, such as the ethnic studies department at UC Santa Cruz, posted statements on their websites criticizing Israel’s invasion of Gaza in response to the Hamas assault in Israel. The potential adoption of the policy comes as pro-Palestinian protests and encampments have popped up across the system’s 10 campuses, with arrests of hundreds and, at UCLA, a violent counter-protest.
How a university should respond, if at all, to various forms of protest has suddenly become an overwhelming question across California and the rest of the nation, affecting graduation ceremonies and faculty support of campus leaders.
The agenda for Thursday’s regents meeting at UC Merced included the policy as an action item to be voted on by the regents, but for the third consecutive meeting, the vote was delayed. Unlike previous meetings, the item was not discussed in open session before regents decided to postpone the vote. They did not say whether it was debated in closed session.
Faculty across UC have criticized the policy, arguing that it would infringe on academic freedom and questioning how it would be enforced. But supporters of the policy, led by regent Jay Sures, say it is needed to ensure that the views of faculty departments aren’t misinterpreted as representing UC as a whole. Sures could not be reached for comment Thursday about why the item was delayed again.
Under the latest version, political and other opinionated statements would not be allowed to appear on the homepages of departmental websites. They would be permitted elsewhere on those websites, but only with a disclaimer stating that the opinions don’t represent the entire campus or university system.
Entering the regents meeting, academic senate leaders had asked the regents not to adopt the policy and instead issue a statement endorsing recommendations made by the senate in 2022. The latest policy in many ways mirrors the senate recommendations but does have some differences. The senate recommendations say faculty departments should be able to make political statements on UC homepages, as long as the statements include a disclaimer and don’t take stances on elections.
“We would welcome a straightforward Regents’ statement endorsing the 2022 Senate recommendations rather than the creation of new and not entirely clear bureaucratic regulations that raise issues of compliance and enforcement,” wrote James Steintrager, chair of the senate, in a letter to regents ahead of this week’s meeting.
Steintrager did, however, say the policy was an improvement over previous versions because it “enunciates clearer goals, defines key terms more explicitly, and better specifies the types of statements it covers.”
Steintrager also wrote that he appreciated that the regents took feedback from the senate ahead of this weekend’s meeting. That sentiment was echoed by James Vernon, a professor of history at UC Berkeley and chair of the Berkeley Faculty Association. Vernon said in an interview this week that the regents ahead of this meeting took “a more consultative approach to the academic senate.”
But Vernon, like senate leaders, still has reservations about the policy and questioned whether it’s an issue the regents should be dealing with at all.
“For me, this policy represents an overreach by the regents. The academic senate has already issued a report about statements on websites. It set out a set of discretionary guidelines for campuses and departments to follow,” Vernon said.
Oakland Unified recently completed construction of new academic buildings at Fremont High with funding from a previous bond measure.
Courtesy of Oakland Unified
A Senate Education Committee hearing Monday produced a unanimous vote in support of a $10 billion school construction bond initiative for the Nov. 5 statewide ballot. It also provided a preview of what likely will be the arguments over an anticipated lawsuit challenging how the state shares funding from state bonds with school districts.
The public interest law firm Public Advocates charges that the bond that Californians will vote on will perpetuate a system that will award districts with the highest property values the most state money and harm students in low-wealth districts. It opposes Assembly Bill 247, providing the language for the ballot initiative, and has threatened to sue unless there are substantial changes to the funding arrangement.
“Our property, poor district space, face an uphill battle in struggling to raise matching funds due to low property values, often the result of decades of systemic discrimination and underinvestment in communities of color,” Gary Hardie, Jr., a school board member in Lynwood Unified, located east of Los Angeles, and a representative of the California Association of Black School Educators, told the senators. “This just isn’t unfair; it’s morally unacceptable.” Public Advocates cited Lynwood’s plight in a complaint it filed with state officials in February.
The chairs of the Senate and Assembly Education Committees, both primary authors of the bill, disputed the characterizations, pointing to the bill’s changes to the allocation system, which they said make the funding system fairer.
“It just breaks my heart to hear some of the over the top rhetoric that they’re (Public Advocates) are using,” said Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, responded. “If our goal is to serve the greatest good, the greatest number of socioeconomically disadvantaged students are in those districts that they’re calling wealthy like Los Angeles Unified, Oakland Unified, Long Beach Unified that lined up in support of this measure.”
The bill would increase the state’s share of matching money by as much as 5 percentage points, to 65% for renovations and 55% for new construction. It would expand the number of “hardship” districts with property tax bases too small to issue bonds, qualifying for 100% state aid.
Nicole Ochi, deputy managing attorney of Public Advocates, dismissed the changes as insignificant. “They will do nothing to reverse the regressive distribution of state bonds, nor will the minor changes to the financial hardship program address the punitive and burdensome nature of that system,” she said. “A sliding scale of 60 to 65% is not a meaningful equity adjustment. This is equity in name and not substance.”
Public Advocates proposed a much bigger sliding scale, with no guarantee under the current system that all districts receive at least 50% matching aid for new construction and 60% for modernization. Instead, districts with the lowest assessed property values per student, including Lynwood, San Bernardino City, and Fresno, would get a 95% match from the state, with a 5% local share; property-rich districts, like Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Santa Barbara, would get a 5% state funding for a 95% local contribution.
Ochi said Muratsuchi was conflating low-income demographics with low property values. Primarily low-income students attend Fresno, San Bernardino, Oakland, and Los Angeles. But Oakland and Los Angeles benefit from commercial and industrial wealth, with above-average assessed property per student. Their match from the state would decline slightly under Public Advocates’ proposal.
Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, chair of Senate Education, countered the assertion by Public Advocates that the widely supported school facility program, created in 1998, is unconstitutional. “The program’s framework is built on equity and fairness and, over time, it has evolved. It’s been updated to better serve California’s diverse school districts,” he said.
He said the revised program’s “balanced approach provides additional support to high-need districts while maintaining a sustainable and broadly supported funding model statewide.”
The committee voted 7-0 to back the bill, which the full Senate and Assembly are expected to pass on Wednesday. Public Advocates has yet to decide its next move, but it said nothing in the latest bond proposal has led it to change its position.
The article was clarified on July 5 to make it clear Sen. Josh. Newsom disagrees with the assertion that the school facility program’s funding formula is unconstitutional.
Political signs for the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified school board are on display at an intersection in Yorba Linda.
Credit: Courtesy of Kevin Reed
Millions of California residents will not have the opportunity to vote for the people representing them on their school boards on Nov. 5 because many of the board races will not appear on the ballot.
EdSource analyzed data from 1,510 school board races in 49 California counties and found that 851 races, or 56%, will not appear on a ballot because either no one is running for the seat or a single candidate is running unopposed – making that person an instant winner.
The problem is most prevalent in more remote areas of the state, where the lack of school board members has been an ongoing issue, said Troy Flint, chief information officer for the California School Boards Association.
Districts in rural counties have smaller populations, limiting the pool of candidates for school board, and offer fewer incentives — such as monthly stipends or health insurance — than larger districts, said Yuri Calderon, executive director of the Small School Districts’ Association.
In Siskiyou County, 14 school districts do not have candidates running for their open board seats, and in San Benito County, there are 20 candidates for 31 open school board seats, leaving 13 seats without candidates. Only one race, for Trustee Area 4 in the Hollister School District, is on the ballot. It has three candidates.
In Nevada County, four of the nine districts have no candidates for their open board seats. In Plumas County, there are no school board races on the Nov. 5 ballot, although there are a total of six open seats in two districts, according to the county elections department.
School board members are responsible for setting the vision for the district, hiring its superintendent, adopting policies and curriculum, passing a balanced district budget, overseeing facilities, providing direction for and accepting collective bargaining agreements, monitoring student achievement and making program changes as needed, according to the California School Boards Association.
Calderon recalls having to convince community members to run for school board when he was the chief business officer at Cold Spring School District, which serves 193 K-6 students in Santa Barbara County.
There is less incentive for rural residents to run for school board because they are usually more satisfied with their schools and less likely to think of a school board seat as a springboard to higher political office, like candidates in more populated areas of the state might, Calderon said.
The absence of school board candidates on the ballot suggests an erosion of what many regard as a pillar of American democracy in places where there is reluctance or unwillingness to run for board positions.
Cities, suburbs also have a shortage of candidates
“One of the dynamics that’s been playing out has been people reluctant to hold onto their seats, and then people are reluctant to run for office because there’s a lot of hostility out there, and sometimes threatening behavior that are prompting either existing school board members or potential school board members to rethink whether or not they want to hold this office,” said John Rogers, director of the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at UCLA.
The shortage of willing school board candidates is also impacting urban and suburban areas, according to the EdSource analysis. In Los Angeles County, for example, 252 candidates are running for 174 seats, meaning 90 seats have only one candidate and will not be on the ballot. The same goes for Sacramento County, where there are only 54 candidates running for 31 seats and San Diego County where 169 candidates are vying for 100 seats.
Calderon and Siskiyou County Superintendent of Schools Allan Carver agree that potential candidates are sometimes wary about running for a board seat because of the political divisiveness that has been playing out at school board meetings.
“It’s kind of one of those thankless jobs,” Calderon said. “And there has been a lot in the media about controversial issues and people becoming very, more so than just polarized, kind of aggressive with their positions. And I think that people shy away from wanting to get involved in that.”
Some rural district seldom hold elections
The lack of candidates is so common in some rural districts, school boards routinely fill empty seats by appointing people – often the incumbents – after the filing deadline ends. Some districts rarely have elections.
“It’s very typical,” said Krystal Lomanto, San Benito County superintendent of schools. “We have seven rural districts and many of those districts do not have board members that actually run for seats – they end up appointing them. So, it is a consistent practice, at least in our community. We don’t often have – in our rural school districts – board members that run against each other, so it happens quite often.”
San Benito County, a rural county in the Central Coast region, has some of the smallest school districts in the state – 15 districts with a total enrollment of 11,969 students.
In Siskiyou County, the northernmost county in the state, there are 30 candidates running for 67 school board seats in 25 districts. Fourteen school districts have no candidates for any of their open board seats and six districts have 11 seats with candidates running unopposed.
Carver expects the number of vacancies to dwindle by January when many of the open seats will be claimed by incumbents who did not file candidacy paperwork, but will continue to hold their seats by appointment.
“A lot of these vacancies, they’d hardly even consider them vacant because I bet more than half of those — probably 20 of the 37 — the (incumbent) board members are like, ‘No, I’m happy to serve. I just didn’t get my paperwork in, so just appoint me,’” Carver said.
Finding candidates for board seats in extremely small districts can be difficult. The result is often multiple family members sitting on one board. Delphic Elementary School District in Siskiyou County is governed by a board made up of a mother, father and their adult daughter, Carver said. The single school serves 65 students, many from outside the district — limiting the number of parents eligible to run for school board, he said.
“This family happens to own property that borders the school and their driveway goes right by the school,” Carver said. “Their kids went to school there, and they’ve had a long history of supporting it. So, talk about local control.”
Stipends, insurance could attract candidates
Carver is doing what he can to make being a member of the Siskiyou County Board of Education more attractive. He recently convinced the board to raise the monthly stipend from $40 to $100 so that he could attract more candidates. He said the board, like many other rural school boards, was reluctant to increase their own pay. The board also receives health insurance.
Most school districts in Siskiyou County can’t afford to pay their board a stipend to cover expenses or to offer them insurance, Carver said.
What happens if no one runs for a seat?
If no one runs for a board seat, school boards can either appoint a trustee or hold a special election. Most boards opt to appoint a trustee to avoid costly special elections.
Santa Cruz City Schools Superintendent Kris Munro sent a letter to families last month asking parents to consider applying for a seat on the board that does not have a candidate in the upcoming election. District officials also sent news releases about the available seat, advertised it in video updates and on the district’s social media accounts, and placed a legal notice in a local newspaper, said Sam Rolens, district spokesperson.
The district, which serves 4,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade, along the state’s Central Coast, has three open seats. The two other seats that are available have one only candidate each, meaning they also will not be on the ballot.
Applicants for the open Santa Cruz seat without a candidate had until Oct. 18 to file their applications. Three days before the deadline, two people had applied, Rolens said. The district offers its trustees a $50 monthly stipend, according to Santa Cruz Local.
Santa Cruz County has even fewer residents interested in running for school boards this year than in the previous election, according to Santa Cruz Local. Three-quarters of the open board seats in Santa Cruz County, including those in Santa Cruz City Schools, will not be on the ballot on Nov. 5, according to the news site.
Boards must have quorum to conduct business
Having a full board is imperative for conducting the school district’s business. In order to vote on agenda items, a school board must have the majority of its board in attendance. Five-member boards, for example, must have at least three, and seven-member boards must have at least four members present to take action on an agenda item.
If the school district cannot fill enough board seats to have a quorum, the county Office of Education can send one of its board members to act as a substitute until the district can make an appointment.
Having a member of the Board of Education sit on school boards isn’t common, but it has happened a few times in Siskiyou County, Carver said. In one case, a county Board of Education member became a temporary board member at a tiny district serving 25 students after it lost two members of its three-person board. In another case, a board member sat on a district board for three months until they found a willing appointee, Carver said.
Despite the dire shortage of school board candidates, Carver says he tries to encourage people who will be willing to learn and consider all sides of an issue to run for office.
“You know, we always want to encourage people who have the right faculties and demeanor, and seek to truly govern for all and don’t have just one specific issue they’re concerned about,” Carver said.
Ariane Tuomy, a social studies teacher at Palo Alto Unified’s Gunn High School, responds to school board members’ questions at a special board meeting on Jan. 23.
Credit: Palo Alto Unified / YouTube
In hour two of a meeting that stretched to nearly five, Josh Salcman, barely two months on the Palo Alto Unified School Board, said aloud what other school board members no doubt realize at some point in their first term: “I’m acutely aware that no matter how I vote, I’m going to deeply disappoint a large part of our community, including people whose friendship is important to me and whose opinions I hold in the highest regard.”
He was undoubtedly right. Whether to require ninth graders to take an ethnic studies course starting next fall was and likely will remain contentious this year, not only in Palo Alto but throughout California.
Palo Alto had become the latest skirmish in California’s ethnic studies war. Salcman, who founded two education-related tech startups, was in the middle, ultimately facing the awkward decision of choosing between the views of enthusiastic students and teachers and apprehensive parents.
Two decisions in 2021 all but guaranteed that. First, a battle-weary State Board of Education, after multiple rewrites, approved an ambiguously worded curriculum framework that challenged districts to determine what should be included in an ethnic studies course. Then, the Legislature mandated that schools offer an ethnic studies course in high school starting in 2025-26.
Or maybe not. This month, Gov. Gavin Newsom decided not to fund the implementation of ethnic studies in next year’s state budget without explaining why. This not only calls the mandate into question, at least for next year, but also gives an out to districts that are dreading arguing over the course.
But not Palo Alto. Last week, board President Shana Segal, a Palo Alto native and former high school teacher, called for a special board meeting to approve the course that Palo Alto high school teachers had developed. The district would offer it in the fall and mandate it for graduation, starting in 2028-29. Regardless of state funding, that would be one year ahead of the state mandate. She set the hearing for later in the week, Jan. 23.
To pause or not to pause?
For two years, at the board’s direction, a half-dozen veteran Palo Alto teachers persevered to create a first-year ethnic studies course. Last fall, they offered a pilot version to 20 students in each of the district’s two high schools in Palo Alto. The students’ survey results, all positive, were in.
At the center of the conflict is Liberated Ethnic Studies, a strain of ethnic studies that made the liberation of Palestine a prominent element of instruction. Critics characterize it as a left-wing ideology focused on the ongoing domination and oppression of white supremacy, capitalism, and colonialism.
Ethnic studies faculty at California State University and University of California and activists created Liberated Ethnic Studies after the state board rejected the first draft of the curriculum that they had primarily authored in 2019. They have made spreading Liberated Ethnic Studies a lucrative side hustle and have contracted with at least several dozen districts to train teachers and guide instruction.
In a May 2024 FAQ it published, the Palo Alto parent group cited language tying Liberated Ethnic Studies to the proposed course.
Superintendent Don Austin has reiterated that Palo Alto’s course is not Liberated Ethnic Studies and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict won’t be part of a course on California racial and ethnic groups.
But in October, Linor Levav, an attorney and co-founder of the parent group, filed a Public Records Act request for curriculum materials that the district had largely ignored. Eventually, the district provided a PDF that contained links that couldn’t be opened.
The rejection has fueled suspicions. “And so the question is, why are they teaching materials that they’re not willing to even tell us about?” she told EdSource.
The parent group called for a “pause” from proceeding with a mandated course.
While running campaigns for their first term on the five-member board, Salcman, Rowena Chiu and Alison Kamhi supported a delay. Now, the new majority’s campaign position would be put to a test.
The audience in the boardroom was not particularly friendly to the three dissenters. The room seated about 80, with some standing room. By board rules, students get to speak first, and they filled most of the room. The adults lined up outside to address the board for one minute via Zoom or enter to do so individually. Forty-five were set aside for one-minute comments. Students, all supporting ethnic studies now, clapped enthusiastically at comments they liked.
During the hearing, the three board skeptics said they shared some of the public’s concerns about the course’s content. They questioned its timing and sharply criticized the district for not being forthright about what would be taught in the course.
“I believe we have to be very transparent about what we are teaching, provide an opportunity for meaningful feedback, and not push through classes that make people and communities, including communities of color, feel unsafe, targeted, or disrespected,” said Kamhi, who is the legal program director for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
Watch Palo Alto Unified board member Josh Salcman discuss his concerns regarding ethnic studies.
Two hours into the hearing, when he was still advocating a delay, Salcman explained his dilemma, mixing high praise for the teachers’ work with well articulated reservations about some of the content.
He congratulated the teachers who developed the pilot course and the initial students who took it. Their presentation “underscored what I’ve heard from many community members who have emphatically urged me to vote yes.”
“I find myself agreeing with most of what they say,” he said. “About how one-sided our current history classes are, about how little our students are currently learning about the experiences of historically underrepresented communities. How our students from those communities can feel so marginalized as they question why their family histories are nowhere to be found in our classrooms.”
And “how they wish we could have more challenging conversations about topics like power and privilege and structural inequity.”
Then he switched and laid out his concerns and those he had heard in the community:
“insufficient communication, which I share”
“ideologies that could increase a sense of division among students, which could lead to fixed mindsets or scapegoating”
“a lack of guardrails”
“widespread confusion about why, if there’s nothing to worry about, almost no details were shared about the course until yesterday.”
One thing he knows for certain, he said, is: “We do not have a shared understanding of what the phrase ‘ethnic studies course’ means.”
“Is an ethnic studies course primarily about the histories, cultures, and contributions” of the main ethnic and racial groups in California?” he asked, or “Is it primarily about concepts like ethnicity, identity, intersectionality, power, privilege, oppression and resistance? Is it a mix of both?”
Striking a balance
At least on paper and in student testimonies, Palo Alto’s course would appear to strike a balance. The teachers’ eight-page course description — the form that board members have used to approve all previous courses — states that the course “examines social systems, social movements, and civic participation and responsibility through a local lens. … By fostering empathy and belonging, the course prepares students to engage meaningfully in our communities.”
The four units in the course would be Identity; Power, Privilege and Systems of Oppression; Resilience and Resistance; and Action and Civic Engagement, in which students would create their own projects aligned to the course.
Each of the four units in the course would contain sample essential questions, learning objectives, and examples of assignments and assessments. Students would keep a journal of reflection throughout. Each unit calls for reading, analyzing and evaluating multiple and diverse sources.
Palo Alto High history teacher Ben Bolanos acknowledged that privilege and systems of oppression “are triggering for certain people” but said it “is important to look at the shadow side of the human experience in order to understand what needs to be changed and how to look at and change the world for a better place.”
The word “oppression” appeared more than 100 times in the state framework, observed Ander Lucia, a Teacher on Special Assignment.
Watch student testimonies regarding ethnic studies at Palo Alto Unified.
All the student evaluations of the course — 27 of the 40 who completed one — were positive. A half-dozen ninth graders elaborated at the hearing.
“I’ll admit I had some reservations going into this course,” said Gunn High student Quinn Boughton. “I wasn’t sure how much it would apply to me as a white student or whether the topics might make people feel divided or uncomfortable, but those fears turned out to be completely unfounded. This course didn’t just teach history; it built empathy.”
Gunn student Gabriel Lopez’s takeaway from the course was: “When one group of people takes power from another, I think it is the responsibility of school to teach us about the injustices people face. So, in the future and in our lives, we can strive for more equality.”
For his final project, Palo Alto High student Amaan Ali organized Palo Alto students to volunteer at tutoring programs for less well-off students in East Palo Alto. “These projects go beyond academic exercises. They empower us to turn knowledge into action,” he said.
Boughton examined homelessness in the Bay Area “in a new light” to dissect the problem and “discuss the causes and impacts of the unhoused with my peers.”
The presentation impressed board President Segal, a Palo Alto native who taught high school for more than a decade. “So teachers, I just, I want to say these words,” she said. “You did it right. I just want to make sure you know it. You did it right.”
Transparency questioned
Chiu and Kamhi repeatedly stressed that they strongly support ethnic studies.
“Ethnic studies is critical to me personally, but it is also something that I very much believe we need as a society,” said new board member Chiu, a consultant to the World Bank and an ethnic studies instructor who, she said, is scheduled to lecture on “Asian American Women and Difficult Conversations” at UC Berkeley.
But they remained unpersuaded, not because of what the teachers presented, but because of what the district had not provided. The district waited until two days before the meeting to send out an agenda with information, and it didn’t contain detailed information about the curriculum and the materials that teachers had used in the pilot.
“I also have very specific questions about the curriculum that was sent to us,” said Chiu. “I’m sorry to say, while I’m sure you have an excellent course and the students all say so, I did find your materials difficult to navigate around. I couldn’t open some of the links.”
As it turned out, Austin had included an outdated, detailed curriculum outline called a “scope and sequence” that included the broken links and sites requiring permission to open. Austin blamed the Public Records Act request that required providing outdated material. But Chiu found that explanation wanting. She had spent 48 hours poring over a document under the assumption it would be taught in the pilot. That, she said, “causes more confusion and more calls for lack of transparency.”
Neither Austen nor other district officials explained why the document did not include more information than the presentation.
“I will say it’s quite possible that your course is not going to incite any of these incidents that we’ve seen in other school districts,” Chiu said. “However, it’s connected to the issue of transparency. So if the community has not had, in their view, sufficiently transparent instructional materials, that fear is only going to grow.”
Kamhi put it differently. “What I feel really uncomfortable doing is saying every single student should take a course that we know is controversial, that based on the materials we’ve seen, some of which are problematic. Maybe they’re being taught in the classroom; maybe they’re not — without more information about what the course actually is.”
Dissenters’ dilemma
The three board members found themselves in a Catch-22. Pressed to say what in the course needed to be changed, they couldn’t provide answers without more information.
After hours debating unsuccessful amendments to Segal’s motion, and amendments to those amendments, the original motion was back on the table.
To the teachers, Segal and the fifth member, Shounap Dharap, the issue came down to trust. The founding teachers had held listening sessions for the public when the course was being developed, and had made changes in response.
“I want to reiterate my thanks, gratitude and trust in our teachers. These teachers are choosing to do extra work in addition to their daily teaching, lesson planning and grading. I know from firsthand experience the amount of time and dedication it takes to create curriculum,” Segal said.
“When we are sitting here hearing that there are concerns about the course and the way the course is being presented to students, I, we can’t help but take that personally, right?” said Jeff Patrick, social science instructional leader at Gunn, “because that, that is our job and that’s the job we thought we had the trust of the board to do, right? We think we’ve done our job, and we don’t know what a pause is going to do.”
Dharap, a personal injury attorney and law professor, encouraged board members to base their decision on what they heard from teachers and students, not the unsubstantiated fears of the public. “We really need to sit down and consider whether a decision that we’re going to make now is valuing adult inputs over student outcomes.”
The final vote
Salcman sought a solution in the minutes before the vote. He pointed to San Dieguito Union High School District as a model for involving the public. It posted each ethnic studies unit on a website as it was developed with a form inviting comments.
“I’m not saying now that we need to go back and do that. We are where we are” but is there a way to move the course forward and involve people in the process? he asked.
Dharap said the board already has liaisons with schools to convey concerns and frustrations and serve as a “conduit” for community feedback. He said the board can set course goals, measurements and expectations for public input.
“How do I know that I have a commitment from folks in this room to try to address the concerns that I raised?” were Salcman’s last words before the vote.
Segal and Dharap said yes quickly. Chiu and Kamhi hesitated before voting no.
The silence surrounding Salcman was unsettling. Twice during that time, Segal said, “There’s time; we can all take a breath. We have time.”
Three and a half minutes seemed like hours passed before Salcman said his next word, “Yes.”
Segal immediately announced the motion passed 3-to-2 and ended the meeting and the webcast.
One can only speculate what went through his mind during the long pause that followed — wondering perhaps which friend or close adviser he would please or disappoint or whether he made the right vote? Salcman didn’t respond to EdSource’s repeated invitations to share his thinking.
Pastors for Texas Children has been working hard to defeat vouchers, which would not only eliminate separation of church and state but destroy the state’s rural schools.
Pastors for Texas Children said the following:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jay Pritchard, 214.558.6656, jay@upwardpa.com
April 14, 2025
Faith Leaders Condemn Voucher Vote During Holy Week as an Affront to Religious Liberty
Austin, TX — Pastors for Texas Children (PTC) strongly condemns the Texas House’s decision to schedule a vote on HB3—the Governor’s private school voucher bill—for this Wednesday, squarely in the middle of Jewish Passover and ChrisHan Holy Week.
“This is an outrageous assault on religious liberty,” said Rev. Charles Johnson, ExecuHve Director of Pastors for Texas Children. “Governor AbboP is exploiting sacred days of worship and family observance to silence faith leaders who have led the opposiHon to his dangerous voucher scheme.”
For months, clergy and faith communiHes across Texas have spoken out against diverHng public funds to private and religious schools. By scheduling this vote during the holiest days of the year, Governor Abbott and House Public Education Chair Brad Buckley are showing calculated disrespect for those religious tradiHons.
“By forcing this vote during ChrisHan Holy Week and Jewish Passover, Greg Abbott and Brad Buckley aredefiling our sacred Hme and silencing prophetic voices,” said Rev. Johnson. “It’s a cynical and cowardly political tacHc.”
Let the People Decide
PTC calls on Governor Abbott and Chair Buckley to reschedule the vote or, better yet, put the issue on the November 2025 ballot and let Texans decide whether public tax dollars should fund private and religious schools.
Momentum is growing to place a school voucher referendum before the voters. Texas law allows for ballot initiatives with a simple majority vote in the Legislature—a far more democratic path than ramming this bill through during a religious holiday week.
“God is God is God—not Greg Abbott,” said Rev. Johnson. “We have a divine and constitutional mandate to protect free, public education. To schedule this vote when clergy are in the pulpit and families are at the Seder table is a disgrace. If the Governor believes in his plan, he should put it before the people—not hide behind a holiday.”
Pastors for Texas Children urges lawmakers of all faiths and parties to stand up against this manipulaHon and vote NO on HB3. Let Texans decide the future of their schools—not politicians exploiting the calendar for poliHcal gain.
About Pastors for Texas Children
Pastors for Texas Children is a statewide network of nearly 1,000 churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship working to protect and support public educaHon. We equip faith leaders to advocate for fully funded public schools and oppose efforts to divert public dollars to private and religious institutions.
