LOS ANGELES, CA — December 2, 2024 — (NOTICIAS NEWSWIRE) — On November 30, Federal Judge Fernando M. Olguin dismissed with prejudice a two-and-a-half-year-old lawsuit against educators alleging that the curriculum of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium (LESMCC) was discriminatory and antisemitic. Judge Olguin took great pains to explain that not only was there no evidence of harm to the plaintiffs but that a curriculum that merely makes people feel uncomfortable is not discriminatory, nor does the inclusion of anti-Zionist material preclude students from exercising their religion.
Calling the complaint “difficult to understand” with “irrelevant” allegations and “troubling” given that the plaintiffs amended their complaint three times, the judge dismissed their case and ordered that the plaintiffs will face financial penalties for the educators’ legal fees after bringing a complaint to chill the educators’ constitutional rights to free speech.
This overbroad lawsuit, brought without evidence, created an atmosphere of fear that had a statewide impact, a shadow ban, on the teaching of Ethnic Studies. Teachers were doxxed, reprimanded, placed on administrative leave, or fired for daring to envision a brighter future for students of color, uncovering the hidden histories of people of color. After years of material and psychological harm, Dr. Theresa Montaño said, “I feel exonerated, vindicated, and victorious. This is a victory not just for LESMCC but for every ethnic studies teacher who dares to teach the truth, including lessons about Palestine. This is an historic case for teachers everywhere who worried that when they entered a classroom, they lose the right to present an anticolonial and liberatory curriculum.”
Guadalupe Carrasco Cardona felt a sense of relief not just for herself but for other educators facing similar backlash throughout the state. She said, “It’s a huge relief because we’ve been accused of untrue things. LESMCC is not antisemitic, nor has it ever been. We are for real ethnic studies, and ethnic studies is not hate. Ethnic studies is love.” Ethnic studies is meant to balance an unbalanced high school curriculum by including the histories of students of color, who comprise 80% of California’s school-age population. This federal court decision reminds educators that students have the right to a robust and rigorous education, including information that might make them uncomfortable, and be in compliance with California’s law AB 101, which is the high school ethnic studies graduation requirement.
A lawyer for the Defendants, Mark Kleiman, lauded the ruling, calling it “A victory for students and parents hungry for knowledge about how oppression operates in the present day, and is not just something from history, and is a warning that we will resist efforts to muzzle us and will make want-to-be censors pay for what they have done.”
LESMCC is unwavering in its advocacy for authentic research-based K-12 ethnic studies that increases high school graduation rates, GPAs, college matriculation, and improved cross-racial understanding. The dismissal of this lawsuit gives us hope for meeting our responsibility as California educators who condemn our collective failure to provide an excellent education to all of California’s youth.
Virtual Press Conference, December 2, 2024, 7:00pm, register at qrco.de/dismissed
Key Quotes from Judge’s Decision
“Speech is often provocative and challenging. Here it is clear that plaintiffs find the non-District defendants’ speech and other conduct relating to the development and implementation of an ethnic studies curriculum to be ‘provocative and challenging.’ ‘But our legal tradition recognizes the importance of speech and other expressive activity even when- perhaps especially when- it is uncomfortable or inconvenient.”
“Offensive content that does not penalize, interfere with, or otherwise burden religious exercise does not violate Free Exercise rights.’ This is even so where such content contains materials that plaintiffs may find ‘offensive to their religious beliefs’”
“It is clear that the SAC [lawsuit] is a ‘direct attack on curricula’ – and ‘absent evidence of unlawful intentional discrimination, parents are not entitled to bring Equal Protection claims challenging curriculum content”
“..it is far from clear that learning about Israel and Palestine or encountering teaching materials with which one disagrees constitutes an injury”
“The individual plaintiffs’ potential exposure to ideas with which they disagree is insufficient to support standing”
“The individual plaintiffs have not alleged ‘a sufficient likelihood of future injury’”
“Absent an allegation of an underlying racist policy, plaintiffs cannot challenge the assignment of material deemed to have educational value by school authorities”
“In short, plaintiffs’ equal protection claims under both the California and United States constitutions must be dismissed.”
“..the manner in which the non-District defendants ‘have inserted themselves’ is what the anti-SLAPP statute is designed to protect – namely, ‘conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.’”
“The non-District defendants have shown that their speech, other conduct, and advocacy relating to LAUSD’s potential ethnic studies curriculum implicate and compel public discussion of public issues.”
“Far from challenging government conduct, plaintiffs’ complaint seems to be with the fact that non-District defendants are advocating for curricular offerings with which plaintiffs disagree.”
“The court is persuaded that plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a probability that they can preval on any of their claims, as their claims are either legally insufficient or barred as a matter of law.”
