California Attorney General Rob Bonta formally filed a suit against Chino Valley Unified School District Aug. 28, arguing a new policy to inform parents of their children’s preferred gender and name violates the California Constitution.
Although the case is brought by the Attorney General’s Office, it is a civil case, and does not allege criminal acts.
Follow Our Courts reached out to the school district for comment.
“We’re in court challenging Chino Valley Unified’s forced outing policy for wrongfully and unconstitutionally discriminating against and violating the privacy rights of LGBTQ+ students. The forced outing policy wrongfully endangers the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of non-conforming students who lack an accepting environment in the classroom and at home,” Bonta said, according to a press release.
The policy requires schools to inform parents if their child asks to use a name or pronoun that is different from the one on their birth certificate, or if they ask to use facilities or participate in programs that don’t align with their official sex.
Bonta argues the policy violates the California Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, the constitutional right to privacy, California Education Code Sections 200 and 220, and Government Code Section 11135.
He also claims the policy subjects transgender students to harassment, and mental and physical abuse.
Bonta says the Chino Valley Unified School Board intended to discriminate against transgender students, relying on statements from board members that said transgender students are suffering from a mental illness or a perversion.
The policy was adopted July 20, with a 4-1 vote. The meeting was contentious, with more than 80 public commenters on that item, including State Superintendent of Public Education Tony Thurmond.
So many people wanted to speak on the topic that the board voted to reduce each person’s time from three minutes to one minute.
Board members
Board President Sonja Shaw said during the open session meeting that parents should be implicitly trusted.
“Stop assuming that parents are dangerous. That’s reckless. Because a household is affirming or non-affirming, right now they’re saying that non-affirming households are dangerous. Where do you get that? Actually, if you ask me, and I’ve listened to tons of parents, it’s actually very safe to be a non-affirming, caring, loving household,” Shaw said.
“There’s always been man, woman and then you have this, transgender, and it’s not going to stop there. It’s going to keep on rolling, rolling, rolling, because it really is a dismantling of our humanity, and it is an illusion, it is mental illness, and what is so sad is that we are saving children,” board member Andrew Cruz said.
“As women are being erased, parental rights will start being erased, because that is the agenda, it is the destruction of families. It is the destruction of individuality. In the end, our children are going to be lonely, isolated and despair (sic), and a lot of them are not going to have children, because this is one way to reduce the population,” Cruz continued.
Board member Don Bridge, who voted against the policy, said that it would result in a lawsuit and be a distraction from the curriculum.
“That’s what we should be discussing. What’s in the framework and getting a staff report as we enter the new school year. That’s what I would like to be discussing, and not culture wars too,” Bridge said.
In support of the policy, school board member James Na paraphrased a Karl Marx claim that communism should provide public schools instead of continuing to educate through families.
Student, attorney, teacher
A transgender student, according to the lawsuit, said that the policy will push students to be closeted at school.
“52 percent of trans kids feel accepted at school, but only 35 percent feel accepted at home. That leaves a large gap there of kids who feel welcome at school but not at home. Feeling safe at school lessens suicide risk. If a student isn’t out to their parent, (this policy) shoves them ‘in the closet’ at school,” they said.
During the meeting, the school district’s counsel, Anthony DeMarco, said that there was not clear guidance on whether the constitutional right to privacy applies to children.
Brenda Walker, president of the teachers’ union Associated Chino Teachers, said that the policy would open the school district up to legal action.
“The policy would be divisive, unnecessary, and would require many students to feel insecure and unsafe at school,” Walker said.
State Superintendent Thurmond
After Thurmond finished his minute of speaking in opposition of the policy and left the lectern, Shaw, the board president, broke standard procedure by speaking directly to Thurmond while public comment was ongoing.
She called for a point of order, which is used to draw attention to improper procedure. Instead of pointing out an improper procedure, Shaw said Thurmond was perverting children and mentioned his support of her opponent in the last board election.
“Tony Thurmond, I appreciate you being here tremendously. But here’s the problem. We’re here because of people like you. You’re in Sacramento, proposing things that pervert children. You had a chance to come and talk to me, Tony, by all means you had a chance to come talk to me. Why was it so important for you to walk with my opponent? You are the very reason we are in this,” Shaw said.
Thurmond returned to the lectern and called for his own point of order. Shaw announced a five minute break and walked away. She returned three minutes later, after Thurmond had walked away at the request of four school safety officers.
Temecula and Murrieta Valley Unified School Districts both made their own versions of the policy this month.
A trial setting conference is scheduled for Feb. 26.
San Bernardino Superior Judge Jeffrey Erickson is assigned to the case. The Attorney General’s Office immediately filed a motion to change judges.
Deputy Attorney General Delbert Tran brings the case.
Case No. CIVSB2317301
Read the complaint here.
Read the policy here.
