Public education in California has reached a dismal level of low performance. Per the latest results from the Nation’s Report Card (NAEP), California students are lagging behind the national average. We are even trailing  [**behind**](https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/mathematics/2024/g4_8/state-district-trends/?grade=4) **traditionally underperforming states like Louisiana and Mississippi**  in fourth-grade (233 vs. 237 national/235 Louisiana/239 Mississippi) math scores. Years of far-left ideological indoctrination has had devasting effects on student performance.

The other side has spent the last half a century (or longer) infiltrating our education system from within. Step by step, they have installed activists in key decision-making positions in nearly all school districts, popularized fringe teaching practices, and perfected processes to purge dissent.  **Such omnipotent takeover will not be undone by one election, some legal victories or a few local political wins alone**. Aside from national and state policies, we must  **stay focused on the substantive issues of education at the local level**: academic curricula, school finances, professional training programs… To reclaim academic excellence, we must  **effect long-term changes at the local level**, day in and day out.

Since our founding, CFER has put into practice the strategy  **of helping local parents and community members build up their own local school district organizations**. It is a  long-shot strategy that does not bring immediate payoff or political glamour. Why do we insist on it then, you’d ask? Very simple.  **Parents, taxpayers and residents know their schools and communities the best.**  They have personal stakes in the fight. Therefore, local community members in a school district can often obtain the latest and accurate information. On the other hand, local stakeholders, who vote, can make authentic claims that will be acknowledged by the school district leadership. Compared with national and state advocacy organizations,  **the model of local school district organizing affords parents and other community members ownership and flexibility**.

Admittedly, the first step is usually the hardest. It is not just getting connected with likeminded individuals in your area. The crucial task of building awareness requires a public-facing website: you must build it and maintain it. At CFER, we recognize this urgent demand. After working with parents throughout California to kickstart their own local watchdogs, we are proud to announce that  **CFER now has the experience and knowhow to help you create and maintain your own local organization website, for free**  **and within weeks**.

![Screen Shot 2025-04-29 at 4.46.13 PM.png](https://strapi-cfer.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/33242800e841d64d2624c0c6728b7b23.png)


Having a credible website is a necessary step towards broadening outreach to other parents and community members who can also be empowered with timely information and pertinent knowledge. For instance, the  **PUSD Community Watch** [**website**](https://www.pusdcommunitywatch.org/), which CFER helped create and maintains on a regular basis, provides finetuned school district information, including school board members’ voting records, curriculum, school district finances, recent bond measures, school-level performance data, etc. The group has just announced important updates to its website, including a trustee area map, an updated meeting calendar, current legislation issues in education, and more. Recently, CFER also  **helped launch DSUSD Community Watch’s** [**website**](https://www.dsusdcommunitywatch.org/), which is now complete with all relevant school district data and facts, such as school board policies, budget plans, a board meeting calendar, and parents-facing FAQs. After launching these two websites, we now have the capabilities to scale up with efficiency!

![Screen Shot 2025-04-29 at 4.43.43 PM.png](https://strapi-cfer.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/8e36bd0a78ea5ffb326025ebfa52fd4e.png)

**If you are interested in starting your own school district watchdog organization, we will be glad to help you build your website with customizable features so that you can manage it with ease**. Contact us today at  [info@cferfoudation.org](mailto:info@cferfoudation.org)  to get started.

Due to the customizable and flexible nature of creating a website based on the local school district, we will incur some fixed costs on hosting platforms. Not counting labor cost, we are looking at spending $40 a month for one school-district website. We understand that financial cost is always a significant hurdle for parents who are investing their own time, energy and other resources in reaching out to voters and other local stakeholders. As such,  **we strive to make it a bit easier for them by offering to build their website for free**.  **Within weeks, we can customize a website with user-friendly features for future upkeep**.

But unlike lushly funded thinktanks and foundations, CFER runs predominantly on grassroots donations. We pinch every penny because we know  **every valuable contribution from you carries your trust and faith in CFER**. Even if you are not ready to start your own organization, you can make a kind  [donation](https://www.cferfoundation.org/support)  to CFER today to help us help more local parents kickstart their own websites and their own local groups.  **We are currently facing a $20,000 deficit**  **and your generosity will make a big difference.**

Can we count on you today?

large_Screen Shot 2025-04-29 at 4.39.14 PM.png

medium_Screen Shot 2025-04-29 at 4.39.14 PM.png

small_Screen Shot 2025-04-29 at 4.39.14 PM.png

thumbnail_Screen Shot 2025-04-29 at 4.39.14 PM.png

Screen Shot 2025-04-29 at 4.39.14 PM.png

Self-managed website toolbox offered to motivated parents and local stakeholders

You may know that I drove 500 miles to Sacramento from San Diego to testify against a number of DEI bills (many reparations-themed) at the California Legislature earlier this week. Like many others who joined me, we had to take days off from our full-time work. Thanks to Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Andrew Quinio and other friends, we made **a strong showing of opposition against racial discrimination**.  
  
Today, I am happy to report **some wins from my thousand-mile trip**:  

1.[SB 21](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=355eeb4d15&e=0111f1f5cd), an equity-based state workforce development bill targeting “Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians" and “transgender” individuals, has been **completely rewritten following CFER’s official opposition** submitted on March 3, 2025. During yesterday’s [hearing](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=981517c45c&e=0111f1f5cd) at the Senate Local Government Committee in which I spoke on the bill, Sen. Durazo confirmed that the new SB 21 would not engage in any government preferences. Instead, it is now a housing assistance proposal.  
  
While this is the first time (in CFER’s five-year journey of monitoring state legislation) that a bill is **thoroughly gutted with every single word changed**, **it would have not been accomplished without CFER’s proactive monitoring and opposition**.  
  
2.[ACA 7](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=d408605acc&e=0111f1f5cd) (Prop. 209 partial repeal) and [SB 515](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=cdbd943dba&e=0111f1f5cd) (race-based employment data reporting), two major reparations bills, did not receive strong support compared to our opposition. Notably, even one Democratic lawmaker at the Asm. Higher Education Committee abstained from voting on ACA 7, after we [testified](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=6b3033f626&e=0111f1f5cd) against it, questioning the proposal’s constitutionality. **If we continue to apply pressure, there is a good chance that we can head off this renewed attempt to assault Prop. 209**!  
  
 3.While [AB 57](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=d7f6ada7d6&e=0111f1f5cd) (home purchase preferences for slavery descendants) and [AB 7](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=6d7e03cf80&e=0111f1f5cd) (college admissions preferences for slave descendants) were approved by the Asm. Judiciary Committee and the Asm. Higher Education Committee, respectively, **we succeeded in tipping the other side’s hand and exposing these bills’ racial intent**  **and unconstitutional race-based nature**. Without our active participation, they wouldn’t have been sufficiently pressured to make these mistakes.  
  
At the Judiciary Committee hearing in which PLF and CFER both [testified](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=29ebb3a9f1&e=0111f1f5cd) against AB 57, bill author Asm. McKinnor had a slip up, explicitly mentioning “African Americans” again in her closing comments before immediately changing the term to “U.S. descendants of slavery.” Prior to our testimony, she had insisted that her bill does not use a race proxy. She even felt the need to **lecture us to go the African American museum in D.C. and get educated**.  
  
After our testimony, committee chair Asm. Kalra disparaged us, saying “as immigrants, **the moment we (Asian Americans) stepped on the soil here in California, we had advantages over descendants of African slavery**.” In the same ironic breath, Kalra then lamented on the “generational harms” and “systemic bias” done against “**our Black sisters and brothers**.”  
  
The theatrical trickery was on full display during the Higher Education Committee [hearing](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=3533d8e9e4&e=0111f1f5cd) on AB 7. AB 7 author Asm. Bryan made **a false analogy, comparing her proposed admissions preferences for slavery descendants to legacy admissions**, which do not exist in California’s public higher education system. Committee member and ACA 7 author Asm. Corey Jackson responded to our opposition with an insult: “**some people who have come to this country in different ways unfortunately believe that they’re on the same standing as us**.” Another committee member Asm. Sharp-Collins chimed in: “**It’s about equity over equality**.” Their divisive rhetoric inflamed the public with supporters of the bill demeaning our side as “racist.” **If reparations are never about race, but lineage, why would our opposition be classified as “racist”**?  

 **California’s out-of-touch legislative process is not happenstance. For years, a special interest lobby** consisting of teachers’ unions, woke academics, teacher-activists and far-left NGOs **has hijacked the legislative process**, skewing it more and more leftward. This lobby cartel went all in to support AB 7 and AB 57 this week, with the former receiving over 100 in supportive public comments. Grievance and racial studies professors from UCLA, San Francisco State University, and West Los Angeles College brought in their students and affiliated student association representatives for a 15-second public comment each. You wonder why these college students were taking such an active part in state politics. We will investigate further and report back.  
  
Reclaiming equality and merit in California is an uphill battle. But I hope you are encouraged by these small victories. In a similarly positive spirit, I am also happy to report to you that **the University of California Academic Senate overwhelmingly rejected (12-to-29 with 12 abstentions) the “Area H” ethnic studies requirement proposal yesterday**! CFER is proud to have contributed to this victory with our [action alert](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=e4b03b814d&e=0111f1f5cd) and [official letter](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=25624fbf20&e=0111f1f5cd).  
  
I firmly believe that CFER’s proactive work is adding value to and helping all Californians defend equality and merit, while exposing radical leftists’ insanity. However, we can’t do it without your financial support. We now have close to $25,000 deficit at the end of April, probably due to the recent downturn in the stock market. As a volunteer and donor to CFER myself, I want to kindly ask you for a [donation](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=7d3a2ee031&e=0111f1f5cd) to support CFER’s work!

large_8854c1617cf374e5b25de91eb314c0d0.png

medium_8854c1617cf374e5b25de91eb314c0d0.png

small_8854c1617cf374e5b25de91eb314c0d0.png

thumbnail_8854c1617cf374e5b25de91eb314c0d0.png

8854c1617cf374e5b25de91eb314c0d0.png

Small victories amidst challenges: report from my Sacramento trip

Ideologues and radicals are unfazed by setbacks and reality checks. No matter how many times illiberal proposals for racial discrimination have failed by popular vote, gubernatorial veto or political calculations, they constantly come up with new wineskins to promote the scheme of treating people differently on the basis of race or color.  **Rhetorical subtefuges, pleasant-sounding euphemisms and confusing proxies are all weapons in the radicals’ arsenal**.

In the California Legislature,  “reparations” is the new codename for unconstitutional racial preferences.**Under the mantel of reparations, the California Legislative Black Caucus  [unveiled](https://blackcaucus.legislature.ca.gov/news/california-legislative-black-caucus-announces-2025-legislative-priorities)  its “Road to Repair 2025 Priority Bill Package” in February, presenting a slew of legislation aimed at “**addressing the systemic barriers that Black Californians continue to face**,” rather than remedying historical wrongs as a result of slavery. The politicians also want these bills to help “**build a more just and equitable future**.” Altogether, the bill authors are not shy about their intent to use descendancy from slavery as a race proxy. If passed, each of these bills will inevitably lead to violations of Proposition 209 and perpetuate the ideology of dividing Californians (and Americans) by race.

**This is, in essence, DEI 2.0.**

Sadly, against prevailing public opinions for equal treatment and against sound political judgement,  **the state legislature is actively moving DEI 2.0 through the committee process**. A number of committee hearings have been scheduled on  **Tuesday (April 22) and Wednesday (April 23)**. As one of the first organizations to  [expose](https://californiaglobe.com/articles/twitter-hate-trolls-attack-calif-for-equal-rights-foundation-exec-dir-over-reparations/)  the race-based nature of reparations in California and the state’s recognized opposition to many reparations-themed proposals, CFER plans to  **speak at the hearings and organize the public to show up in support on April 22/23**  in the state capitol.

On  **Tuesday, April 22**,

· 8 am: the Assembly Judiciary Committee will hear testimonies and vote on  [AB 57](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB57), home purchase assistance for descendants of slaves.

· 8:30 am: the Assembly Public Safety Committee will discuss and vote on  [AB 1071](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1071&search_keywords=race), criminal procedure reform to combat “systemic racism and white supremacy.”

· 9:30 am: the Senate Judiciary Committee will decide on  [SB 437](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB437&search_keywords=slavery),  allocation of $6 million to the California State University to conduct further research on reparations “for African Americans.”

· 1:30 pm: the Assembly Higher Education Committee will hear  [AB 7](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB7&search_keywords=slavery), college admissions preferences for slave descendants.

On  **Wednesday, April 23**,

· 9 am: the Senate Education Committee will hear  [SB 510](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB510), racial history education on “segregation, slavery, and systemic discrimination.”

· 9:30 am: the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement will discuss and vote on  [SB 464](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB464), employer pay data reporting based on “race, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation.”

· 9:30 am: the Senate Local Government Committee will decide  [SB 21](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB21&search_keywords=equity), equity workforce development based on race and gender.

If you live near Sacramento, I encourage you to  **join CFER on either (or both) of the date**s to rally against the state’s wrongheaded push for discrimination. On each day (April 22 and April 23), we will meet in the morning in front of the State Office Building at  **1021 O St, Sacramento, CA 95814.**  Reply to  [info@cferfoundation.org](mailto:info@cferfoundation.org)  and let us know if you can participate so that we can coordinate further.

· We will start at  **8 am on Tuesday, April 22**.

· We will start at  **8:45 am on Wednesday, April 22**.

With your participation, we can demonstrate to state lawmakers that  **the grassroots coalition organized to defeat Proposition 16 is still active today to monitor, defend and promote equal rights**. We will have some pamphlets and T-shirts ready for you.  **Please consider being a part of this important effort**!

We also understand that you may not be able to make it to Sacramento. But you can still show support for CFER’s work with a generous  [donation](https://www.cferfoundation.org/support)  – it will be much appreciated!

Thank you in advance!

large_cover0822.jpg

medium_cover0822.jpg

small_cover0822.jpg

thumbnail_cover0822.jpg

cover0822.jpg

California Legislature Enacts DEI 2.0 with Reparations Bills: Join CFER on April 22 & 23 to Rally against

Here we go again. Even with Proposition 209 and the Supreme Court ruling in  _SFFA v. Harvard/UNC_, California schools are still disregarding the law and engaging in racial discrimination.

While undergraduate admissions continue to be an area of contention and legal scrutiny, many have identified a new concern – various  **scholarships, grants, and financial aid programs that exclude certain races/ethnicities**. Currently, there are two programs we are examining and  **would love to learn more directly from students who may be negatively impacted** by these programs.

**1.** **The University of California at San Diego: “Black Alumni Scholarship Fund”**

This  [program](https://crowdsurf.ucsd.edu/campaigns/uc-san-diego-black-alumni-scholarship-fund)  at UCSD, established by the UC San Diego Black Alumni Council and currently implemented by the San Diego Foundation (ostensibly due to Prop. 209), offers $2,500 awards to UCSD students who are black, renewed annually for up to four years. In addition, the program also “connects scholars with a network of resources such as the Black Resource Center’s Student Success Institute and learning communities.”

**2.** **Peralta Community College District: PAAAA Scholarship**

Peralta Community College District, encompassing Laney College, Merritt College, College of Alameda and Berkeley City College, offers this  [program](https://www.peralta.edu/admissions/student-resources/paaaa/scholarship)  to “recognize African American students.” It gives “two $1,000 scholarships,” “one district-wide NAACP $1,000 scholarship,” and “two districtwide African International $1,000 scholarships.” PAAAA is “an affiliate of the Western Region Council on Black American Affairs (WRCBAA) and the National Council on Black American Affairs (NCBAA).”

We are in search of  **current undergraduate students at UCSD or from the Peralta Community College District who are not Black/African American**. They may be **discriminated against and excluded**  from either one of these two programs on the basis of race. If you know anyone who fits our search criteria, would you let us know by responding to this email? You can  **help CFER more effectively challenge unconstitutional discrimination by identifying potential students from these schools, whose identity will be protected**.

Thank you in advance!

Action Alert Regarding Race-based Scholarships at UCSD and Peralta Community College District

Do you know that  **[167](https://strapi-cfer.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/8e3def30e39bfa1b03cdd2ff045c9a13.pdf) colleges and universities in California are certified “Minority Serving Institutions (MSI),”** a federal  [program](https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/doi-minority-serving-institutions-program)  that rewards schools that enroll certain percentages of minority students with “in-kind services, volunteerism, diverse hiring, grants and contacts” ? [Note: only Asian American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI),  _not_  Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), are counted here.] 167, or  **nearly a quarter of all higher education institutions**  in the Golden State, is a shocking number!

In other words, these schools enjoy a federally bestowed advantage over the rest for having achieved demographically significant student bodies, even though the qualifying number of minority students may have vastly different individual backgrounds. Some may come from wealthy, new immigrant families while others come from poverty perpetuated generationally. Therefore, are the sort of MSI programs based on crude race and ethnicity consideration fair?

![Screenshot 2025-03-12 at 7.18.58 PM.png](https://strapi-cfer.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/4fd235d401e90716e86ca7518ceac32c.png)

Leaders of CFER ally American Civil Rights (ACR) Project – Professor Gail Heriot, Mr. Peter Kirsanow and Mr. Daniel Morenoff – are now challenging the constitutionality of MSI programs in  [their](https://strapi-cfer.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/a34254570d04d9810cb8ef9553e4fb2a.pdf)  [letters](https://strapi-cfer.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/21654070b31948dded10ca81e08dbb2b.pdf)  to Congress. Addressing the U.S. House Budget Committee, House Committee on Education & Workforce and their Senate counterparts, the ACR Project criticizes these programs as “racially and ethnically discriminatory programs [that] shovel about a billion dollars annually,” of which Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) are “the largest and best funded.” The ACR Project has asked Congress to  **repeal these unconstitutional programs and “replace [them] with increased funding for a program that subsidizes colleges and universities that serve low-income students, or with programming to support the needs of actual English-language learners.”**

Of the 167 MSIs in California, many are public universities governed under Prop. 209, which bans racial preferences in public education. Notably, of the 23 California State University campuses, 21 are  [touted](https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/diversity/Documents/HSI-fact-sheet.pdf)  as HSIs. The University of California system  [celebrates](https://diversity.universityofcalifornia.edu/actions/minority-serving-institutions.html#:~:text=Five%20of%20UC's%20nine%20undergraduate,status%20at%20every%20UC%20campus.)  five of its nine undergraduate campuses as HSI-designated. These taxpayer-funded institutions use the federal MSI designation to claim exemptions from Prop. 209. They should not be allowed to do so.

**This timely proposal to defund MSI and fund programs based on economic/linguistic needs is a sensible one**. Not only does the race/ethnicity-based requirement (i.e. having a student body that is at least 25% Hispanic) fail to satisfy the longstanding constitutional doctrine of strict scrutiny, MSI programs are also not narrowly tailored to address any past discrimination. Nor are these programs a justifiable “supplement to help schools whose students are struggling with English as a second language.” To make matters worse, the lure of more federal funding, contracts and other favors has created  **a counterproductive, anti-excellence incentives for many schools**, such as the UC San Diego and the University of San Diego,  **to become obsessed with racial balancing at the expense of academic standards.**

We hope you support the “Defund MSI” proposal. It is  **a necessary initiative for devising public policies to incentivize both equal treatment and merit-based government assistance** (for higher education). It is about time that we as a country seriously confront the poison of race/ethno-centric policies/thinking. If you agree with the ACR Project’s legislative proposal, you can  [contact](https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member)  your congressional representatives and alert them to this initiative. As for CFER, we will further support this project with media outreach and awareness building. You can also support our work with a kind donation today!

As always, thank you!

large_Screenshot 2025-03-12 at 7.18.45 PM.png

medium_Screenshot 2025-03-12 at 7.18.45 PM.png

small_Screenshot 2025-03-12 at 7.18.45 PM.png

thumbnail_Screenshot 2025-03-12 at 7.18.45 PM.png

Screenshot 2025-03-12 at 7.18.45 PM.png

Defund Minority Serving Institutions: and replace them with more funding for students in need

CFER’s late January  [analysis](https://www.cferfoundation.org/posts/post-12-bills-2025)  of 12 new state bills was a preview of the California Legislature’s devotion to identity-politics-infused public policies. Since then, progressive state legislators have ramped up their efforts by introducing over a dozen of new bills intended for more reparations, more discrimination and more indoctrination. Just take a look!

**Reparations as “new ladders of opportunity for Black Californians”**

In response to the federal government’s crackdown on racial preferences, the California Legislative Black Caucus  [announced](https://blackcaucus.legislature.ca.gov/news/california-legislative-black-caucus-announces-2025-legislative-priorities)  its “Road to Repair 2025 Priority Bill Package” on February 20. Rather than providing government assistance to individuals and families on the basis of need, the package advances “policies that promote equity, economic opportunity, and justice for Black Californians.” Among these reparations-themed policies, there are:

● [ACA 7](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260ACA7): to amend Prop. 209 to include only "public employment, higher education enrollment, and public contracting” in the state’s ban on race-based affirmative action.

● [AB 742](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB742): to mandate the Department of Consumer Affairs to prioritize license applicants who are descendants of slaves.

● [SB 510](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB510): to incorporate "racial history education that covers the impact of segregation, slavery, and systemic discrimination."

● [ACA 6](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260ACA6): to amend the State Constitution to “prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude.”

● [SB 518](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB518&search_keywords=slavery): to establish the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery to be comprised of a Genealogy Division, a Property Reclamation Division, an Education and Outreach Division, and a Legal Affairs Division.

● [SB 437](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB437&search_keywords=slavery): to allocate $6,000,000 for the purpose of enabling the California State University to conduct research in furtherance of the recommendations of the Task Force.

**Icing on the cake: more DEI and racial preferences**

Democratic state lawmakers are not just promoting reparations. They are also interested in perpetuating the unhealthy obsession with race in areas such as state governance, criminal procedures and data collection.

● [SB 515](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB515&search_keywords=slavery): to require public agencies to “include the additional collection categories and tabulations for specified Black or African American groups” when collecting demographic data.

● [AB 766](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB766&search_keywords=equity): to mandate all state agencies and departments to develop and update DEI strategic plans and racial equity analyses.

● [AB 1071](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1071&search_keywords=race): to make legislative declarations about the permeating role of “White Supremacy” and “systemic racism” in criminal convictions.

**Indoctrination in schools**

As if California’s failing public education doesn’t need reforms to bring back excellence, rigor and high standards, union-backed legislators propose the following bills to further the disastrous ideological programming:

● [AB 860](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB860&search_keywords=equity): to require county superintendents to help school districts better address equity concerns in local control and accountability plans.

● [AB 727](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB727&search_keywords=race): to provide state support (including a hotline for the Trevor Project) to students subjected to "school-based discrimination” against LGBTQ+ identities and expressions.

● [AB 1468](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1468): to mandate the State Board of Education to "develop and adopt academically rigorous content standards for ethnic studies instruction in high school.”

I know the constant drumbeat of racial discrimination and indoctrination in state lawmaking must be infuriating. But please don’t be discouraged. Nothing worth having comes easy.  **CFER will closely monitor all these bills, especially those in violation of Prop. 209 (notably the new ACA 7)**. All these proposals have yet to be assigned to a committee. Some may become active. At any rate, we will keep you posted.

We have also submitted position letters against AB 4, AB 7, AB 57, AB 62, AB 73, SB 21 and letters in support of SB 64 and SCA 1. You can read a summary of these bills  [here](https://www.cferfoundation.org/posts/post-12-bills-2025). These bills are in active committee process and CFER has registered our official positions. We hope that our work will make an impact on persuading the Legislature to look closely into these proposals and dial down on discrimination/indoctrination.

If you are interested in some of these policy developments, I encourage you to  [**contact**](https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/) **your State Senators and Assemblymembers to make your voice heard**. As always,  **CFER defends equality and merit through proactively monitoring legislation**. You can support us with a  [contribution](https://www.cferfoundation.org/support)  so that we can keep following state policies while keeping you informed.

Thank you!

medium_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

small_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

thumbnail_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

Legislative Alert! Sacramento Doubles Down on Reparations, Discrimination and Indoctrination.

State Policies

Local School District Policies

CRT in School Districts

Defund DEI

CFER Research & More

Alliance Building

Endorsement

Join Our Coalition

CFER Foundation

Policies

Research

Alliance

Posts