By The Vanguard
OAKLAND, CA – California Attorney General Rob Bonta late last week commented on the actions—the fourth time this month—of a state school district’s policy involving LGBTQ+ student rights.
Bonta issued a statement following Anderson Union High School District Board’s decision to “implement a mandatory gender identity disclosure policy detrimental to the well-being of LGBTQ+ students.”
The AG Office said the policy is “[m]odeled after forced outing policies recently enacted by certain school districts, the policy requires schools to inform parents, with minimal exceptions, whenever a student requests to use a name or pronoun different from that on their birth certificate or official records, even without the student’s permission. The policy also requires notification if a student requests to use facilities or participates in programs that don’t align with their sex on official records.”
AG Bonta earlier this month issued a similar statement after Murrieta Valley and Temecula school districts implemented “a copy-cat mandatory gender identity disclosure policy targeting transgender and gender nonconforming students.”
And, the AG Office said it has opened a civil rights probe into potential legal violations by Chino Valley Unified School District’s adoption of its mandatory gender identity disclosure policy.”
“It is deeply troubling to learn that school districts are putting the well-being of transgender and gender nonconforming students at risk by forcibly outing them,” said AG Bonta.
Bonta added, “My office stands against any actions that perpetuate discrimination, harassment, or exclusion within our educational institutions. We will remain committed to ensuring that school policies are designed to foster an environment of inclusivity, acceptance, and safety for all.”
The AG Office, in a statement, noted the AG “has a substantial interest in protecting the legal rights, physical safety, and mental health of children in California schools, and in protecting them from trauma, harassment, bullying, and exposure to violence and threats of violence.”
The AG added, “Research shows that protecting a transgender student’s ability to make choices about how and when to inform others is critical to their well-being, as transgender students are exposed to high levels of harassment and mistreatment at school and in their communities…77 percent of students known or perceived as transgender reported negative experiences such as harassment and assault, and over half of transgender and nonbinary youth reported seriously considering suicide in the past year.”
When is the attorney general going to take action regarding the local librarian’s comments and actions?
Why would anyone respect an attorney general who seemingly “picks his battles” based upon personal political views?
I’d ask the same question of the ACLU.
Why do you believe that the AG has jurisdiction there?
Doesn’t the Sate AG have a duty to uphold people’s freedom of speech?
No. They don’t.
The AG is involved with school districts because school districts are regulated by the CDE which gives them direct oversight. The library is run by the county, which would give the DA and BOS direct oversight.
https://civilrights.uslegal.com/freedom-of-speech-and-expression/state-law-protecting-free-expression/
You’re stating that “freedom of speech” is only protected by local DAs and supervisors?
Generally not. Generally free speech is enforced by civil suits. The AG is getting involved in the above case because the district is violating state law (at least in their view).
Is there any governmental organization which is responsible for protecting freedom of speech in the first place? (Such as the case where a library system chooses to ignore it?)
Or is it entirely dependent upon private lawsuits (and/or those initiated by an organization such as the ACLU?)
I realize that the ACLU is no longer interested in civil liberties, but that was their original purpose.
The courts enforce it through civil litigation.
So organizations such as libraries have to “self-regulate”, or risk defending themselves in court.
I suppose it might be more accurate to state that the ACLU is only interested in “selective” civil rights – if the rights being trampled belong to a political cause that they believe in.
That organization has totally lost its purpose – far more so than organizations like the Sierra Club.
Yeah right, just like the State AG never gets involved with individual cities control of their own housing development. SMH
The state AG does get involved in housing and has jurisdiction in enforcing HCD regulations.
That’s my point. I guess you don’t get sarcasm. The state has jurisdiction over almost everything but they don’t always get involved.
Sarcasm often doesn’t translate well in writing.
California goes after right wing bigots.