Pacific Justice Institute
Dear Members of the Board of Education,
We are writing to express our disappointment with and opposition to the above-identified Safe Schools Curriculum, as it is under-inclusive of protected minority groups that experience bullying and harassment in schools. By way of introduction, Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is a non-profit civil liberties organization. Our areas of expertise include the expressive, religious and privacy rights of students and parents, under both federal and state law.
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) shares the county’s history as a leader in combating school bullying and violence. As is noted in the Introduction to the California Department of Education publication “Bullying at School,”[1] the Alameda County Office of Education collaborated with the state in 1997 to produce a landmark document designed to address student-to-student violence. This collaboration was prescient, as it preceded by two years the Columbine massacre that prompted nationwide responses to school violence.
The effects of bullying are not limited to any one particular group. According to a JAMA study cited in “Bullying at School,” 30% of students are involved in bullying as perpetrators, victims, or both. The widespread nature of bullying and the urgent need to protect all students is precisely why the Pacific Justice Institute opposes under-inclusive programs such as the Safe Schools curriculum under consideration. We simply cannot afford to politicize school safety by allocating the lion’s share of resources and attention to one minority group perceived to be more politically influential and sympathetic than other groups that are equally at risk.
Under the California Constitution, article I, Section 28(f)(1), “All students . . . have the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure and peaceful.” Moreover, “a special relationship is formed between a school district and its students so as to impose an affirmative duty on the district to take all reasonable steps to protect its students.” Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified Sch. Dist., (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 707, 715.
By focusing “safe schools” curriculum primarily on a small portion of the student population, school districts needlessly expose themselves to liability from the large number of students who encounter bullying, harassment and assaults on other bases, particularly opposite-gender sexual harassment. See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ. (1999) 526 U.S. 629 (districts can be liable for student-on-student sexual harassment); Nicole M. v. Martinez Unified Sch. Dist. (N.D. Cal. 1997) 964 F. Supp. 1369 (student-to-student sexual harassment); M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist. (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 508 (upholding $1.5 million verdict against school district for failing to protect student against sexual assault); Doe v. Petaluma City Sch. Dist. (N.D. Cal. 1996) 949 F. Supp. 1415 (sexual harassment). Even as to sexual orientation harassment, the “safe schools” curriculum completely ignores the fact that such harassment can occur by, as well as to, students with same-sex attraction. See, Michelle M. v. Dunsmuir Jt. Union Sch. Dist. (E.D. Cal. 2006) 2006 WL 2927485 (district sued based on harassment by student who made same-sex advances toward other students).
Of course, harassment based on other protected classes, such as race and religion, also pose significant sources of liability for schools. See, e.g., Davison ex rel. Sims v. Santa Barbara High Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. 1998) 48 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (student-to-student racial harassment); C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2009) Case No. SA CV 07-1434 JVS (ANx) (religious harassment of student). In contrast to the “Safe Schools” approach, the California Education Code seeks to establish educational equity by moving toward the “color-blind” society of which Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke – not elevating or accentuating certain characteristics at the expense of others. To this end, the law declares,
It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies.
Cal. Educ. C. § 200 (emphasis added).
The achievement of these lofty and necessary goals—and the protection of all students—requires a real commitment to an anti-bullying approach that recognizes and affirms the worth and value of all, “regardless” of their personal characteristics. By focusing almost exclusively on sexual orientation while overlooking most of the subgroups specifically identified in the Education Code, not to mention the many marginalized groups not listed, the “Safe Schools” supplemental curriculum is inconsistent with the statutory framework.
For these reasons, we urge you to reject the under-inclusive approach exemplified by the “Safe Schools” supplemental curriculum. As an alternative, we would encourage AUSD to substantially revise the proposed supplemental curriculum to devote equal time and emphasis to each of the protected characteristics listed in Section 200, above, as well as other classifications that have historically divided students and led to bullying and harassment. Such additional classifications could include outward appearance and body image (e.g. height, weight, physical abnormalities, the wearing of eyeglasses or braces), socioeconomic status (e.g. free lunch participants, inability to afford “in” clothing, parents’ occupations or unemployment), and family structure (e.g. single-parent, living with grandparents).
In closing, we believe AUSD can most effectively tackle the very real problem of bullying and harassment in schools be addressing the full range of its causes, rather than focusing a disproportionate amount of resources on sexual orientation.
Thank you for your consideration of this important topic, and for your service to the community.
Sincerely,
Matthew McReynolds
Staff Attorney
Pacific Justice Institute
[1] Available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/bullyres.asp.
We are writing to express our disappointment with and opposition to the above-identified Safe Schools Curriculum, as it is under-inclusive of protected minority groups that experience bullying and harassment in schools. By way of introduction, Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is a non-profit civil liberties organization. Our areas of expertise include the expressive, religious and privacy rights of students and parents, under both federal and state law.
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) shares the county’s history as a leader in combating school bullying and violence. As is noted in the Introduction to the California Department of Education publication “Bullying at School,”[1] the Alameda County Office of Education collaborated with the state in 1997 to produce a landmark document designed to address student-to-student violence. This collaboration was prescient, as it preceded by two years the Columbine massacre that prompted nationwide responses to school violence.
The effects of bullying are not limited to any one particular group. According to a JAMA study cited in “Bullying at School,” 30% of students are involved in bullying as perpetrators, victims, or both. The widespread nature of bullying and the urgent need to protect all students is precisely why the Pacific Justice Institute opposes under-inclusive programs such as the Safe Schools curriculum under consideration. We simply cannot afford to politicize school safety by allocating the lion’s share of resources and attention to one minority group perceived to be more politically influential and sympathetic than other groups that are equally at risk.
Under the California Constitution, article I, Section 28(f)(1), “All students . . . have the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure and peaceful.” Moreover, “a special relationship is formed between a school district and its students so as to impose an affirmative duty on the district to take all reasonable steps to protect its students.” Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified Sch. Dist., (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 707, 715.
By focusing “safe schools” curriculum primarily on a small portion of the student population, school districts needlessly expose themselves to liability from the large number of students who encounter bullying, harassment and assaults on other bases, particularly opposite-gender sexual harassment. See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ. (1999) 526 U.S. 629 (districts can be liable for student-on-student sexual harassment); Nicole M. v. Martinez Unified Sch. Dist. (N.D. Cal. 1997) 964 F. Supp. 1369 (student-to-student sexual harassment); M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist. (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 508 (upholding $1.5 million verdict against school district for failing to protect student against sexual assault); Doe v. Petaluma City Sch. Dist. (N.D. Cal. 1996) 949 F. Supp. 1415 (sexual harassment). Even as to sexual orientation harassment, the “safe schools” curriculum completely ignores the fact that such harassment can occur by, as well as to, students with same-sex attraction. See, Michelle M. v. Dunsmuir Jt. Union Sch. Dist. (E.D. Cal. 2006) 2006 WL 2927485 (district sued based on harassment by student who made same-sex advances toward other students).
Of course, harassment based on other protected classes, such as race and religion, also pose significant sources of liability for schools. See, e.g., Davison ex rel. Sims v. Santa Barbara High Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. 1998) 48 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (student-to-student racial harassment); C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2009) Case No. SA CV 07-1434 JVS (ANx) (religious harassment of student). In contrast to the “Safe Schools” approach, the California Education Code seeks to establish educational equity by moving toward the “color-blind” society of which Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke – not elevating or accentuating certain characteristics at the expense of others. To this end, the law declares,
It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies.
Cal. Educ. C. § 200 (emphasis added).
The achievement of these lofty and necessary goals—and the protection of all students—requires a real commitment to an anti-bullying approach that recognizes and affirms the worth and value of all, “regardless” of their personal characteristics. By focusing almost exclusively on sexual orientation while overlooking most of the subgroups specifically identified in the Education Code, not to mention the many marginalized groups not listed, the “Safe Schools” supplemental curriculum is inconsistent with the statutory framework.
For these reasons, we urge you to reject the under-inclusive approach exemplified by the “Safe Schools” supplemental curriculum. As an alternative, we would encourage AUSD to substantially revise the proposed supplemental curriculum to devote equal time and emphasis to each of the protected characteristics listed in Section 200, above, as well as other classifications that have historically divided students and led to bullying and harassment. Such additional classifications could include outward appearance and body image (e.g. height, weight, physical abnormalities, the wearing of eyeglasses or braces), socioeconomic status (e.g. free lunch participants, inability to afford “in” clothing, parents’ occupations or unemployment), and family structure (e.g. single-parent, living with grandparents).
In closing, we believe AUSD can most effectively tackle the very real problem of bullying and harassment in schools be addressing the full range of its causes, rather than focusing a disproportionate amount of resources on sexual orientation.
Thank you for your consideration of this important topic, and for your service to the community.
Sincerely,
Matthew McReynolds
Staff Attorney
Pacific Justice Institute
[1] Available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/bullyres.asp.