AUSD board discusses anti-discrimination bill

By Lori Bledsoe
The Alpine Sun

     ALPINE — At the most recent Alpine Union School District board meeting, the newly passed anti-discrimination law, SB 777 was discussed in detail.
     The new Senate Bill 777 is a clarified anti-discrimination bill that includes definitions of sub-groups that cannot be discriminated against in schools. This bill revises the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities and instructional materials. Referring to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code.
     The subject of language of this bill was discussed, as well as the phrasing that is put forth in the bill. Two phrases that AUSD board member Mark Price focused on were “reflects adversely,” and “promotes discriminatory bias.” Price requested definitions of those two phrases as the bill states: “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon a person because of a characteristic listed in section 220.”
     Section 220 reads: “No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of 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 in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from state financial assistance.”
     “Who determines or defines discriminatory bias, how far can someone take this?” asked Price. He also questioned, whether or not a school district can, or would be impacted because of how people would define these two phrases.
Scott Barr, AUSD board president answered this by saying, “We are not allowed to breed hate.”
     Price accepted this, and said that California schools already have anti-discrimination laws in place, why do officials really need to start changing the wording to these laws to specify certain groups. He wanted to know then, why not specify all groups, or why not make discrimination against all groups illegal.
     “Is it possible for us, as a board, as a district to come up with our definitions for what that means and put that in our policy, subject to some overruling down the road due to case law,” Price said.
     “The language ‘reflects adversely’ and ‘promotes discriminatory bias’ already exists in current law,” said AUSD Superintendent Greg Ryan. “The only change is, this adds sexual orientation. The definition of those terms have already been established in case law.”
     Price also asked for clarification on a question that has been put to him by parents, “If a guy is feeling his female side, can he use the girl’s bathroom?”
     Ryan did say that he would check with legal council regarding the AUSD board establishing their own definitions pertaining to this bill.
     “I think that the language already has a lot of caveats about race creed and color. So, to me what this is doing is broadening the categories to reflect some real areas where there is a lot of concern in a good number of middle schools as well as high schools across the nation,” said member Ann Pierce.
     “I don’t see it impacting locker rooms and lavatories the way that you are saying, but those are places on campuses where a lot of malicious and cruel behavior occurs to kids who have made a different lifestyle choice. And, if you take classes in diversity now, you get a lot of exposure to what’s happening in the hate crimes; that includes this class and broadens this category to be included with some of the more traditional. I think it’s more of a protection for students from our schools, and high schools where these kids have a lot of discriminatory, as well as cruel and malicious, behavior because of what has been perceived as their life choice.”
     “It has nothing to do with the language of the subsets, but with the fact that they have subsets,” Price responded.  “Discrimination is wrong. All discrimination is wrong... People should be held accountable, but why do we have subsets?”
     Price said he is concerned that the subsets opens up a possibility of defining who exactly is open for discrimination and who is not.
     Barr then addressed Price’s earlier question regarding the possibilities that if a guy feeling his female side he might start using the girl’s bathroom. He said that he too has fielded this question from people in the community.
Barr researched this, and found that this is not part of the bill. He did find something from the Capital Resource Institute, that identified a board policy for the L.A. Unified School District that states that if a student consistently asserts themselves as one gender, then they are allowed to use a certain bathroom. Barr said that this was a board policy and not a state law.
     Price said then to Barr, for clarification, that "under this bill, (SB 777) and under law as you know it today, a child can not go and use the opposite sex bathroom or gym?"
     Barr agreed with this statement and said that this bill does not change that issue.
     The AUSD board did not take a vote on SB 777.

     Read the text of Senate Bill 777 online HERE.

E-mail the Editor