The Murrieta school board won’t join Chino Valley schools’ lawsuit seeking to stop a new law prohibiting California schools from adopting transgender notification policies.
In a 3-2 vote, the Murrieta Valley Unified School District board declined to take part in the legal action.
Board members Linda Lunn, Nancy Young, and President Paul Diffley opposed joining the suit. Nick Pardue and Julie Vandegrift voted in favor of joining.
Diffley said that, while he saw merits to participating, he did not want to join the lawsuit and later pull out. Instead, he wanted to wait until Murrieta’s new board takes over after the November election. The seats of Diffley, Lunn and Vandegrift are up for election.
“I think it is a compelling idea and I have looked at the contracts and the things that they said and they are far better presented and clear,” Diffley said. “I just want to hold this off until the new board is in because I would hate to go through this twice.”
The lawsuit challenges Assembly Bill 1955, which was signed Monday, July 15, by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The Anderson Union High School District, in northern California, and the Orange County Board of Education voted to join Chino Valley’s lawsuit in the past week.
Pardue said the board should accurately represent parents and the community. The district is culturally diverse, he said, and that needs to be respected.
“I think it is really important that everyone’s culture values matter, including Christians, which is hard for some people to pick up on,” Pardue said.
School district attorneys said the risk of joining the lawsuit was relatively low, he said.
Vandegrift agreed with him.
“The whole thing is who are you fighting for here?” she said. “Why would you not want it? It is all set up for us to join and parents want it.”
Parents don’t want to send their children to school and feel like the school may be keeping secrets from them, she said.
Young said the board must move away from culture wars and focus again on schools. Chino Valley is taking a risk with the lawsuit, she said, and that if it loses, the cost for legal fees would fall on that district and those involved in the litigation.
“I find it really inappropriate to take away money from our kids for political fights,” Young said. “This is a non-partisan position.”
Lunn said individual board members or the public could join if they wanted, but the district should not.
“Put your money where your mouth is and obligate yourself and your money — not the children’s money,” Lunn said.
The policy stems from a manufactured problem and the board has taken too much time worrying about “what’s in children’s pants,” she said, adding that it was time to move on.
In August 2023, Murrieta school trustees approved a parent notification policy on a 3-2 vote. The board reaffirmed its position with the same vote in March and again in April with another 3-2 vote after the board received a letter from the California Department of Education orderind the district to stop implementing the policy.
The policy has not been put into place in Murrieta, where officials are still working on administrative rules, training directives and instructions on how the policy would work. However, the policy is described on the district’s website.
The new law prevents California school districts from approving or enforcing parental notification policies, which require employees to release information on a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression without the student’s consent.
The lawsuit seeks to stop the state from implementing the new legislation and argues that it violates the First and 14th amendments as well as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Some who spoke against Murrieta schools joining the suit said it was time to move on. Getting involved would put the district at risk of financial consequences, they said.
Bertie Ackerman, an openly transgender middle school math teacher in the Murrieta district, asked officials to focus on respect for students, parents and teachers. Her No. 1 goal, she said, is to help students find a passion for math.
“Let us please move forward,” Ackerman said.
Murrieta parent Emily Brooks said that, as a child, she was told that one person’s rights started when another’s began. She said the board was putting its presumptions on the community and parroted the words of another parent who said that 14th Amendment protections did not start at 18 years old but protected minors as well as adults.
She said the board’s policy overrode the protections of other students.
“No one else’s rights are affected if we protect that one kid,” Emily Brooks said.
Related Articles
How Republicans helped shape gay activism in America
A record 191 openly LGBTQ+ athletes are competing in the 2024 Olympics
Elon Musk’s trans daughter says dad ‘relentlessly harassed’ her for her femininity and queerness
Chino Valley schools sue to stop new law banning school transgender notification rules
New California law prohibits schools from disclosing students’ gender identities without consent
Those in favor of joining the lawsuit said the issue was one of parents’ rights and keeping secrets from families.
Murrieta parent Eleanor Briggs encouraged the board to join the lawsuit, despite what some said was financial risk. She asked the board to think of the cost, not in terms of money, but the cost to a family.
“I will rally the troops, we will get the community behind you,” Briggs said. “…There are parents who care, parents in this room who love their kids.”
Thompson Middle School teacher Francis Burns said the new law puts him in the unenviable situation of keeping secrets from parents.
“We require parents to be notified for things far less significant,” Burns said.
