Long talks but no deal to modify California law combating antisemitism in schools

Months of intensive negotiations that continued up to last week’s filing deadline failed to produce an agreement on a bill that would clarify the language in a highly contested law that expanded anti-discrimination protections in California classrooms.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 715 last October with the understanding that the authors, Assemblymembers Rick Zbur, D-Hollywood, and Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, would clarify language that some of the bill’s opponents said would chill open discussion of highly charged issues, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

AB 715 took effect on Jan. 1. It strengthened existing bans on discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sex and gender preference. It extended protections to prohibit textbooks, instructional materials and teacher professional development that would subject a student to discrimination. It also requires that classroom instruction be factually accurate and align with adopted curriculum.

The legislation also created a new Office of Civil Rights, which would include an antisemitism prevention coordinator to identify and work to prevent bias and discrimination through training and resources. Parents would be notified annually of their right to file formal complaints about discriminatory conduct.

The California Legislative Jewish Caucus pressed for the law, with the support of other legislative ethnic and racial caucuses, following a sharp rise in documented antisemitic incidents involving student conduct and biased instruction. Oakland Unified is the latest district to be sanctioned by the California Department of Education for its failure to address antisemitism.

But school organizations, including the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association, as well as Arab American and some Jewish groups, argued that vague language in the bill would discourage frank discussions and criticism of the Israeli government and its treatment of Palestinians. Teachers predicted they would be subjected to complaints by those who misconstrued criticism of Zionism as antisemitism or who questioned literature or works of art not deemed factual.

An effort to clarify the law’s potential ‘unintended consequences’

When Newsom signed the law, he said representatives of the entire education ecosystem had “urgent concerns about unintended consequences” of the law, and added that he had commitments by the bill’s authors to “work quickly on a follow-up measure.”
Lawmakers got to work on a proposed bill to clarify the language. Zbur said there was agreement on a few issues in the proposed bill, Assembly Bill 2615, such as excising troublesome passages of text without removing the entire text or materials and giving districts 20 days to respond to complaints.
But, there was no agreement on “language that would preserve the safeguards of AB 715 and address the concerns of stakeholders,” he said. 

“We do not believe that the points they (the opponents) raised have merit,” Zbur said. “They continue to assert that the protective provisions of the bill could prevent teaching controversial topics in the classroom. We do not believe that was the case.”

“They wanted changes that were outside the scope of a cleanup bill,” he said.

CTA President David Goldberg faulted Zbur and Addis for failing to compromise.

“The authors committed to clean up this language to address concerns, and they didn’t deliver. As written, AB 715 opens the door to endless fights over what counts as ‘accuracy’ — and that chills teachers’ ability to explore tough, controversial issues,” he said in a statement. “We are committed to defending every student’s right to a comprehensive education.” 

Troy Flint, chief of communications for the California School Boards Association, credited those involved with clarifying the law. But he expressed disappointment over failure to reach a deal.
“Negotiations with the authors lasted for months as we sought to achieve clarity on what instruction teachers are allowed to provide under the subjective ‘fair and balanced’ standard cited in the original legislation,” Flint said in a statement.

“Our impression is that both sides worked in good faith and the coalition won some concessions, such as the ability to excise transgressive sections from textbooks instead of discarding the entire textbook,” he said. “In the end, we were unable to reach agreement on the critical issue of defining, in a meaningful and practical way, what constitutes a violation of AB 715.”

“Nor could we agree on how subjective topics like fictional literature could be accommodated under the ‘factual’ information restriction included in AB 715,” he said.

An Assembly analysis of AB 2615 in late April, the last time the bill had been amended, summed up the unresolved, problematic issues with state-adopted curriculum raises additional concerns, the analysis said.  “Teachers have always had the ability to introduce new content in order to keep their subjects current, explore new ways of teaching concepts, and make school engaging for students. It is unclear if content beyond the adopted curriculum could be delivered under the requirements of this bill.”

In early January, a judge in U.S. district court in Oakland rejected a lawsuit  by four teachers and several parents of students to prevent the enactment of AB 715, which they said would violate their First Amendment rights. Judge Noël Wise ruled it was premature to determine the consequences of exercising speech, since, on balance, the state has the power to determine what must be taught in public schools. 

She dismissed the amended lawsuit in a final order in July. “Student plaintiffs have not alleged that they were going to receive information related to Israel and Palestine and now will not,” Wise wrote. 

With the first full school year under the law underway, Flint said that the school board association will monitor the law’s impact.

This story was originally published by EdSource.