Former president, others,
       want to halt implementation
       of SB 777 gender bill

By Greg Eichelberger
The Alpine Sun

     EL CAJON — It seems like deja vu all over again for former Grossmont Union High School District Board of Trustees president Priscilla Schreiber. In 2000, she and other conservative citizens fought a battle against the board and its sexual orientation/tolerance policies. Conflicts that ushered out a more progressive panel and brought about a fairly right-leaning conclave.
     Now, however, the battlefront is on a much larger platform — the state of California and its larger-than-life governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
     Schreiber is an individual plaintiff in a federal lawsuit (filed on Nov. 27) to stop implementation of SB 777, the Student Civil Rights Act, recently passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature and signed by the governor.
A Feb. 15 hearing date has been scheduled to hear motions for this suit.
     The law bans “promoting a discriminatory bias against” homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals and transgenders in all instructional materials and activities. The measure also redefines gender into the state educational code to include a person’s “perceived” gender.
     “I was outraged when this bill was signed,” said Schreiber, who served as GUHSD president last year before turning over the reins to Alpine’s Larry Urdahl. “I think it’s ridiculous legislation and we need to stop it.”
     Equality California and the Gay Straight Alliance Network, which supports the bill, are expected to use the Feb. 15 hearing to ask the judge to dismiss the case brought by individual plaintiffs as well as a group called Advocates for Faith and Freedom.
     “Mom and Dad as well as husband and wife have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose,” read a statement from the Capital Resource Institute, one of the groups also involved in bringing about the lawsuit.
     "Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, another plaintiff. “This means children as young as five-years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.”
     SB 777 does not actually order schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms based on how they feel that day, a misconception that has been purported by many opponents of the bill. However, the wording of the bill is vague enough to concern school boards across the state, and Schreiber worries if the GUHSD, as a governing body, will be under threats of liability and lawsuits if any tenant of the new law is violated.
     “SB 777 simplifies and clarifies existing civil rights protections for California students,” wrote Jack O’Connell, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. “It does not expand civil rights protections in the California Education Code, but it does clarify just what those protections include by providing an explicit and clear list in publicly-funded kindergarten through grade 12 schools.”
     Schreiber disagrees. According to her, the measure is nothing more than a “liberal attempt” to push an “alternative lifestyle” down the throats of Californians.
     Introduced in February 2007, the expansive law bans discrimination in public schools against individuals who are members of specified categories known as “protected classes.” It includes a prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The law even protects those who are "associated" with another person who's protected under the categories.
     Schreiber believes in an effort to “protect” gay, lesbian and transgender students, the right of free speech (i.e. the ability to publicly criticize or disagree with these pupils) will be taken away from the majority.
     “I’m going to make noise about this,” she added. “This is a cultural issue, not an educational one. One group is given specific freedoms, while others have their rights taken away. We have to do something about this.
     “These are issues families need to talk about, not pile on additional legislation. We also do not need to put an emphasis on this type of behavior; these are private matters between parents and their children.”
     To see the full text of the bill check online at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20071012_chaptered.html.

E-mail the Editor