Calling the school’s policy “a trifecta of harm,” a judge with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled last September that the Escondido Union School District could not force two longtime teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, to violate their religious beliefs by lying to parents about their students’ gender dysphoria. The teachers were placed on leave for defying the school district’s policy of requiring them to hide students’ gender questioning from parents, and the ruling included an order for their reinstatement.

The Washington Free Beacon quoted U.S. District Court judge Roger Benitez as finding that the district’s policy “harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children. And finally, it harms plaintiffs who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.”

The Free Beacon further noted that the ruling was issued just as California’s attorney general Rob Bonta “has mounted an all-out battle against a growing number of school districts that are bucking state guidance to secretly transition kids,” doubtless because many parents are resisting such subterfuge. In a January 10, 2024 “legal alert,” Bonta doubled down on his earlier directive to school districts, claiming that “outdated social stereotypes” are a leading reason for keeping parents informed of their child’s gender-related issues when presented in school, and that school districts therefore would be violating their “duty of care” to students by revealing such crucial information to parents without the “student’s express consent.”

The original lawsuit was filed in April 2023 by the Thomas More Society and LiMandri and Jonna, LLP, charging that the Free Speech and Free Exercise rights of Mirabelli and West under the First Amendment were violated. At issue is the school district’s policy to not only accept without question a child’s claim of transgender status, but for teachers and school district personnel to begin aiding the child’s gender transition while deceiving his or her parents about it.

After ignoring the court’s original directive to do so, Judge Benitez again ordered the school district to reinstate the teachers in January 2024. While the court stopped short of sanctioning the school district, it reinforced the order that the teachers be returned to their former positions.

Legal showdown

On February 1, the Thomas More Society announced that Mirabelli and West’s lawsuit was expanded to include California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta. Thomas More Society communications writer Tom Ciesielka explained that Mirabelli, et al. v. Olson, et al. “now names Newsom and Bonta as defendants in the suit, along with the officials of the Escondido Union School District, California Department of Education, California State Board of Education, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Rincon Middle School, where both teachers are on staff.”

According to the expanded legal action, the defendants “are all operating under the supervision and control of the Governor, who has ultimate responsibility for overseeing the state’s education system.” The plaintiffs’ attorneys say the school district claims it is “compelled by the state to adopt and enforce parental exclusion policies in which California dictates the deception requiring teachers to lie to parent about their students,” which suggests the state government “is the driving force behind the violation of Mirabelli and West’s constitutional rights.”

Attorney Paul Jonna explained that “the California Department of Education tried to have it both ways. On the one hand, they tried to tell the court that their ‘guidance’ on gender identity policies is not mandatory, even though they used words like ‘must’ and ‘required.’” On the other hand, the education department “is working hand-in-hand [around the state] with the California Attorney General enforcing this supposedly non-binding ‘guidance’ with litigation and by withholding millions of dollars of state education funds ... Because the California AG and the Governor are so connected to this fight, we’re naming them as defendants to hold them fully accountable as well.”

Battle lines drawn

In at least six other states, litigation is pending against school districts for transgender policies that keep parents in the dark over pronouns and social transitioning of students. An article in Education Week (May 2023) exulted: “None of the parents suing schools over this issue have won a legal argument against a school district yet. Two cases have been dismissed after judges ruled that the school districts did not violate any laws. In two other cases, parents have appealed the court’s decision and the final verdict is pending....”

But so far parents are not dissuaded. As the litigation shows, in most cases their demands are simply that school districts “be obligated to inform them if their child chooses to use a different name and pronouns at school, or questions their gender identity, even if the child has asked teachers or counselors not to reveal that information.” In a Virginia case cited by Education Week, teachers joined parents in asserting that “their religious freedoms under the state constitution were violated when they were required to use a student’s preferred name.”

The growth of parents’ rights activism in recent years demands that schools recognize the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children, but most school districts remain defiant and are refusing to back down. Supported and fortified by amicus briefs and other legal help from radical LGBTQ organizations like GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders), district administrators seem convinced they are obligated “to support students by, at the bare minimum, dignifying them when they say, ‘this is my name, and [these are] the pronouns that I want to use.’”

Goldwater Institute attorney Adam Shelton confirms the issue is about parents’ rights. “It’s not a transgender issue, or an issue about whether or not gender affirming care should be provided or not provided,” Shelton told Education Week. “It’s usually about whether or not parents should be involved with this sort of decision-making process.”

Secrecy in Kansas

Last month, Parents Defending Education (PDE) posted an announcement from Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach that several school districts in his state are allowing personnel “to hide from parents the fact that a student may be using a different name or pronouns at school.” Kobach had previously challenged such policies in six school districts, which were allowing schools to “socially transition” students without the parents’ knowledge or consent.

“A child changing his or her gender identity has major long-term medical and psychological ramifications,” Kobach wrote. “Parents should know, and have an opportunity to be involved in, such an important aspect of their well-being.”

Of the six school districts that received letters from Kobach, two rescinded their offending policies in short order. Both the Belle Plaine USD and the Maize USD responded that they “had no intention of cutting parents out of the process” and either rescinded or amended their policies without delay. The remaining four, however, dug in their heels and refused to make any changes. Three of these districts are in the Kansas City metro area, and one in Topeka, which some observers note are more liberal areas.

PDE reports that Kobach also sent a letter to the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) based on evidence that “KASB may have been involved in promoting policies that push parents out of the way on this issue,” but the organization has refused to confirm or deny involvement in drafting such policies. Kobach’s letters to the KASB and four holdout districts can be found here.

PDE Vice President Caroline Moore says Kobach’s pushback in Kansas “could easily be adopted and tailored to fit any state,” depending on its political appetite and the willingness of state officials to take on rogue school districts. “Parental exclusion policies purposely tarnish relationships between parents and children, to no avail,” she adds. “Kansas is a great example of recognizing an issue that impacts all and correcting course, so these policies don’t plague another generation of students and their families.”

Transgender activism in red state schools

But PDE further warns of a transgender activist push “to reach every American child with their perverse ideology” and contends that they “have spent the last few years crusading through red state schools to achieve that goal. And they’re making headway.”

A March 13 article at Townhall.com notes that transgender activists “began their mission to reach children in blue state schools in the early 2010s, but now are fully committed to the idea of also capturing children in red states with their dangerous ideology. Unfortunately, as we can see in places like Utah, Idaho, and Ohio, they are succeeding at a frightening pace.”

The Townhall article explains, for example, that school board associations and other high-profile organizations are targets for activists who use them as “trojan horses to enter schools in unsuspecting communities” by providing transgender policies and pushing for their adoption.

PDE submitted hundreds of public records requests in Utah, Idaho, and Ohio “seeking any policies or guidance regarding transgender and gender identity issues.” The organization says numerous schools have “succumbed to outside pressure,” unbeknownst to parents and community members. Some examples of Utah school districts with transgender policies include the Alpine School District, North Summit School District, and the Kane County School District. “In most cases,” reports PDE, “the Utah School Boards Association directly provided these policies and encouraged the adoption of them.”

In Ohio, Akron Public Schools “has a policy that states district staff will work with students and/or their parents regarding transgender issues.” PDE says districts “often use this language to avoid admitting parents will be left in the dark while also signaling [that] parents do not need to be involved.”

Columbus City Schools’ policy for parents who oppose their children changing genders is “to subordinate their role to mere opinion-givers. District staff then ‘continue to work with families and students in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution.’” Both the Akron and Columbus districts “either leave parents out of the equation or try to force them into accepting a compromise with their kids.”

Townhall.com opines that, like the parents and teachers in Escondido, California, the attorney general in Kansas, and the many brave pro-parent activists working nationally in PDE and other organizations on behalf of parental rights, “any chance of stemming the tide of gender ideology in our nation’s schools will require parents and communities to speak up and hold their officials accountable.... If we remain silent, we could lose an entire generation of children.”

Want to be notified of new Education Reporter content?
Your information will NOT be sold or shared and will ONLY be used to notify you of new content.
Click Here

Return to Home PageEducation Reporter Online - March 2024