A judge in Riverside County has shot down an attempt by activist students, parents and a local teachers union to force Temecula Valley's public schools to set aside policies which prohibit classroom instruction focused on Critical Race Theory, and which uphold parents' right to know when their children may identify by a gender different from their biological sex.
The ruling was hailed by Temecula Valley school board president Joseph Komrosky and leaders of Advocates for Faith & Freedom (AFF), a legal nonprofit organization which is representing the school district in the lawsuit.
"This ruling vindicates the actions taken by the TVUSD school board who put the rights of parents and the safety of students over the wishes of special interest groups," said Mariah Gonderio, vice president of AFF in a statement issued following the ruling.
Komrosky said: "Despite the small but vocal opponents that seek to rewrite history and indoctrinate students, I am very optimistic for our school district.
“I believe that the diversity that exists among the District’s community of students, staff, parents, and guardians is an asset to be honored and valued. These policies were enacted by the school board to ensure our district puts the needs of students and their parents above all else. Our district remains focused on providing a holistic education for all of our students, free from both discrimination and indoctrination," Komrosky said.
Following the ruling, plaintiffs said they disagreed with Judge Keen's ruling, and planned to appeal to a California state appellate court.
Last year, the activists and Temecula Valley teachers union sued TVUSD, claiming the school board had infringed on the rights of students and teachers under the California state constitution by enacting two policies.
The first policy would prohibit curriculum and classroom instruction which is centered on Critical Race Theory (CRT), and would specifically prohibit teachers from instructing students using such theories and ideals as "'only individuals classified as 'white' people can be racist because only 'white' people control society' or 'racism is ordinary, the usual way society does business,' or 'an individual, by virture of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist and/or sexist,' or .... that 'an individual is inherently morally or otherwise superior to another individual because of race or sex.'"
According to court documents, the policy would still allow teachers to cite CRT in social science classes, but only if they properly contexualized the theory and also discussed the theory's "flaws."
The second challenged policy would require teachers and other school district employees to notify parents if their children identify in school as a gender different from their biological sex; wish to participate in sports and activities normally reserved for a gender different from their biological sex; or if the wish to change their official records in any way, which could include altering their gender identity used by the school district.
This policy has been the subject of controversy and litigation elsewhere in California, as well, as some school boards have moved to protect parents' rights by enacting policies that prohibit teachers and school employees from helping or encouraging students to keep gender expressions a secret from their parents, allegedly out of fear of abuse or negative repercussions at home.
The lawsuit against TVUSD argued the anti-CRT policy violated students' educational freedom rights under the California state constitution, and wrongly restricts their access to information, while restricting teachers' rights to speak in the classroom.
And the lawsuit asserts the parental notification policy improperly discriminates against transgender students.
Judge Keen, however, said he did not believe the policies infringe as the plaintiffs claim.
He said the anti-CRT policy doesn't ban students from accessing any information, nor does it stifle teachers' abilities to teach. The judge noted the teaching of the racial superiority worldview under CRT may not align with California's stated goals for public education in the state constitution and in state law.
"Indeed, teachers are to impressed (sic) on students principals of truth, the dignity of American citizenship and the meaning of equality and human dignity which includes the promotion of harmonious relations free from discriminatory attitudes," the judge wrote.
"... It has not been shown to the Court's satisfaction how the prohibition of instruction on 13 precepts found within a Theory, while still allowing instruction on the Theory itself, would infringe on the rights of students to receive information."
The judge further said the parental notification policy holds up under state law, because the policy would apply to all students, and isn't targeted at just transgender students.
"Had the Policy required school staff to report to parents only when a transgender or gender nonconforming student made a request under sections 1(a)-(c), but not when a cisgender student made the request, then the Policy would be treating two groups of similarly situated students differently, but that is not the case here," the judge wrote.
The judge denied the motion for preliminary injunction, leaving the policies in place.
Following the ruling, representatives of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit public interest legal organization, also celebrated the ruling. Liberty Justice Center is representing the Chino Valley Unified School District in a legal challenge to that district's similar parental notification policy.
The Chino Valley district and Liberty Justice Center filed a brief in Riverside County court in support of TVUSD.
“Parents’ right to direct their children’s upbringing is essential, not negotiable," said Senior Counsel Emily Rae. "The Liberty Justice Center and the Chino Valley Unified School District stand with other California school districts who aim to protect parental rights, and applaud the Court’s decision to uphold the Temecula Valley Unified School District’s parental notification policy.”