ORANGE COUNTY - Justices on a California state appeals court have blocked an Inland Empire school district from forbidding its teachers from using so-called Critical Race Theory - which generally filters history and many other subjects through the lens of "oppressors" vs. "the oppressed" - to shape their classroom instruction.
In the ruling, the three-justice panel of the California Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed with teachers' unions and other left-wing groups that the Temecula Valley Unified School District Board of Education - even though the board otherwise control school policies and curriculum decisions - can't forbid CRT in classrooms without violating teachers' constitutional rights.
They said the resolution adopted by the Temecula board is too broad and does not provide enough specific definitions of CRT, "how it is implemented in the District's teachings, or how it harms its students, teachers, staff, or the public interest."
The justices agreed the Temecula anti-CRT resolution has already forced teachers to "self-censor" when discussing race-related topics or potentially sensitive or controversial events and topics, including some thorny historical questions required by the state of California.
"... Teachers are left to self-censor and potentially overcorrect, depriving the students of a fully informed education and further exacerbating the teachers’ discomfort in the classroom. Rather than lead the classroom and moderate healthy discussion, the teachers are forced to leave children’s questions unanswered or potentially let a classroom conversation about race devolve out of fear that their intervention would trigger a Resolution violation," the justices said in their order.
The ruling from the Fourth District court overturned a February 2024 decision from a Riverside County judge in favor of the school board on the question.
The case first landed in Riverside County Superior Court in 2023 when the Temecula Valley teachers union and progressive activists sued the school district, claiming the school board had infringed the constitutional rights of teachers and students to access information and speak in the classroom.
At the time, the TVUSD board had enacted two controversial policies. The first of the policies prohibited curriculum and classroom instruction which is centered on Critical Race Theory 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 virtue 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 contextualized the theory and also discussed the theory's "flaws."
Another policy would have required teachers and other school district employees to notify parents if their children identify in school as a gender different from their biological sex.
The gender notification policy, however, has since been rescinded to bring the district into compliance with a recently approved state law forbidding districts from discriminating against transgender students.
Because the policy has been rescinded, the appeals court agreed there is no longer any legal dispute and that aspect of the left-wing activists' lawsuit against the Temecula district should end.
However, the dispute continued over the anti-CRT instruction resolution.
In Riverside County Superior Court, Judge Eric Keen said he did not believe the CRT ban infringed the constitution.
He said the anti-CRT policy doesn't ban students from accessing any information, nor does it stifle teachers' abilities to teach. Judge Keen 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.
On appeal, however, the justices said Keen was wrong.
They asserted Keen wrongly "failed to consider any of Plaintiffs' (the teachers' and activists') evidence" when he reached his conclusion.
The justices pointed to numerous instances in which teachers claimed the anti-CRT policy allegedly had forced them to shy away from discusing such topics as Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" or his "I Have A Dream" speech, or many other topics related to African American slavery, segregation, or other acts of racial discrimination against non-white Americans or immigrants in the U.S. from America's past.
They said teachers also asserted the CRT ban would prohibit teachers from analyzing "the major social problems and domestic policy issues in contemporary American society," such as women's rights, immigration or poverty, among many others, because the policy banning CRT is allegedly too overbroad and vague.
The justices noted many of those are required to be taught by California state law, along with certain controversial events from California and U.S. history. They said these requirements included ninth grade discussions centered on questions, including: "How have race and ethnicity been constructed in the United States, and how have they changed over time" and "How do race and ethnicity continue to shape the United States and contemporary issues?" and ethnic studies courses which discuss "the historic struggle of communities of color, taking into account the intersectionality of identity (gender, class, sexuality, among others), to challenge racism, discrimination, and oppression and interrogate the systems that continue to perpetuate inequality."
The justices further asserted the Temecula school district offered no proof that students have been discriminated against or made to feel inferior or even uncomfortable through instruction filtered through CRT.
"The ambiguity and politicized spectacle surrounding CRT compounds the issues," the justices wrote. "What racist ideologies and other similar frameworks have the District’s school children been subjected to that warrant the Resolution and denial of an injunction? It seems if these students have been subjected to such racist ideology all this time, there would be evidence in the record establishing as much. But significantly, Defendants’ appellate counsel conceded at oral argument that there is no evidence that any of the Resolution’s enumerated elements or concepts of CRT have ever been taught in District schools."
The appellate panel reversed Judge Keen's order concerning the anti-CRT resolution and directed the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the Temecula district from enforcing the CRT ban.
The decision was authored by Justice Kathleen O'Leary. Justices Eileen C. Moore and Joanne Motoike concurred.
The plaintiffs in the case were represented by attorneys Mark Rosenbaum, Amanda Mangaser Savage, Mustafa Ishaq Filat, Yi Li, Amelia Piazza and Kathryn Eidmann, of Public Counsel, of Los Angeles; and Scott S. Humphreys, Elizabeth L. Schilken and Maxwell S. Mishkin, of Ballard Spahr, of Los Angeles.
The Temecula school board defendants were represented by attorneys Robert H. Tyler and Julianne E. Fleischer, of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, of Murrieta.