Judge advances lawsuit over school board ban on teaching critical race theory

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A California judge rejected two motions Friday by the Temecula Valley Unified School Board to dismiss a lawsuit taking aim at the board's prohibition of the teaching critical race theory (often called CRT) or "other similar frameworks."

The complaint, filed in August by parents, teachers and students of Temecula Valley, said the overly "vague" resolution would deprive students "the opportunity to engage in factual investigation, freely discuss ideas, and develop critical thinking and reasoning skills." The plaintiffs also say the resolution would discriminate against students on the "basis of viewpoint" and inflict "disproportionate harm" on students and teachers of color, and those who identify as LGBTQ.

The school board filed an anti-SLAPP motion, a legal maneuver aimed at quickly dismissing lawsuits meant to chill free speech and public participation.

"The resolution prohibits certain doctrines of CRT that teach that 'only individuals classified as "white" people can be racist because only "white" people control society,'” the board said in its motion, adding any disparate impact was justified "to ensure that no student (or teacher) is subjected to curricula that promotes racism or places moral blame on a specific race." The board also argued that its actions were "political" in nature, and therefore protected speech.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Eric Keen did not seem overly impressed with the school board's arguments, and dismissed them without much discussion after finding the lawsuit fell under California's anti-SLAPP law's public interest exception.

"While the enactments of the resolution and policy might be 'political' in nature, they are not political literature or speech subject to the exception," Keen wrote in his tentative ruling, which he later adopted as final. "Defendants fail to cite to any competent authority that a legislative enactment itself constitutes protected activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP
statute. Indeed, if that were the case, every challenge to legislative enactment would be subject to the anti-SLAPP motion."

The school board also had filed a demurrer, or motion to strike parts of the complaint. The school board's attorney, Mariah Gondeiro, argued during Friday's hearing that the complaint failed to show how the new policy discriminated against certain children.

"This is simply a policy disagreement," Gondeiro said. "It boils down to specific groups not agreeing with a policy. And they're calling it discrimination. It's a very dangerous precedent." She added that the "board's opinion on CRT do not reveal a racial animus."

The plaintiffs' attorney Amanda Mangaser Savage disagreed. "The defendants don’t have unfettered discretion with regards to the curriculum," she said. "The intent to restrict students access to ideas is not a legitimate pedagogical purpose."

Among the most controversial parts of the resolution is a clause that requires schools to notify parents when any teacher or school employee learns that a student has requested "to be identified or treated as a gender that differs from the student’s biological sex," which the plaintiffs say discriminates against transgender and gender nonconforming students by singling them out for adverse treatment.

Gondeiro argued the policy wasn't discriminatory because "it applies to all students. It doesn’t just apply to transgender students."

Judge Keen didn't address the substance of the arguments, but merely said that the complaint stated facts sufficient to withstand a demurrer challenge — though he did agree to dismiss one of the plaintiffs' 10 claims on a technicality.

After the hearing, Gondeiro, who is vice president and legal counsel for Advocates For Faith & Freedom, a group that opposes vaccine mandates, vote-by-mail laws, said in an email, "These were just preliminary motions. We are confident that after discovery, we will prevail because there is no evidence of discrimination and plaintiffs’ claims are meritless."

Follow @hillelaron

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit