**Dear San Diego community members and concerned citizens,**

The City of San Diego has proposed a city ordinance named “Preventing Overpolicing Through Equitable Community Treatment (PrOTECT).” Also known as the Protect Act, this new proposal is a dangerous experiment of social engineering that risks public safety in the name of equity and racial justice. We urge you to reach out to the mayor and your San Diego City Council Member to voice your opposition to the Protect Act. 

Essentially, the Protect Act aims at eliminating “racial or identity profiling” with byzantine restrictions on police actions and bureaucratic red tape. Police officers would not be empowered to make our communities safe when they are prohibited from investigating outstanding warrants, stopping dangerous vehicles, and questioning the person stopped. 

“The Protect Act wouldn’t protect San Diegans at all,” commented Frank Xu, president of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER). “Race-based thinking is plaguing our public life. In K-12 schools, mushrooming Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and antiracism initiatives will undoubtedly erode the quality of public education. In the area of public safety, equity-driven reforms like the Protect Act will certainly lead to more crimes and less accountability.”

“As a career law enforcement professional with decades of experience, I can attest that the proposed San Diego’s Protect Act is bad public policy, and will only serve to severely limit the efficacy of our police officers,” said Paul Cappitelli, CFER advisor and Former Executive Director of California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. “It is touted as an initiative to address ‘disparities’ in policing. However, restricting police officers from their assigned duties will NOT address the issue of implicit bias. If adopted, it would allow criminal activity to flourish in our city, and would do nothing to ameliorate racial inequality.”

Construed on a false premise of systemic bias and over-policing of “Black and Brown people” in the forms of “discretionary stops and searches,” the Protect Act is supported by [far-left lobbying interests](https://cpatsd.com/) such as [Community Advocates for Just and Moral Governance](https://moralgovernance.org/), [the San Diego Black LGBTQ Coalition](https://www.sdblackcoalition.org/about), and [San Diego Showing Up for Racial Justice](https://cpatsd.com/). The primary organized proponent, Coalition for Police Accountability & Transparency, propagates unverified and exaggerated [data](https://cpatsd.com/initiatives/protect-campaign) of police bias to manufacture racial animus, divisions and confusion.

To voice your opposition to the reckless Protect Act, please contact your city council. You can:

1. Find your city Council Member [here](https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=41a1562ea3f14382b639ecc059011f8f&extent=-117.8743,32.482,-116.1495,33.3868) and reach out to him/her via email.

Councilmember Joe LaCava, District 1, JoeLaCava@sandiego.gov

Councilmember Jennifer Campbell, District 2, JenniferCampbell@sandiego.gov

Councilmember Stephen Whitburn, District 3, StephenWhitburn@sandiego.gov

Council President Pro Tem Monica Montgomery Steppe, District 4, MMontgomerySteppe@sandiego.gov 

Councilmember Marni von Wilpert, District 5, MarnivonWilpert@sandiego.gov

Councilmember Chris Cate, District 6, ChrisCate@sandiego.gov

Councilmember Raul Campillo, District 7, RaulCampillo@sandiego.gov

Councilmember Vivian Moreno, District 8, VivianMoreno@sandiego.gov

Council President Sean Elo-Rivera, District 9, SeanEloRivera@sandiego.gov 

2. Contact San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria [here](https://www.sandiego.gov/mayor/contact/send-message). 

Dark Green and Yellow Grunge Security Business Card (1).png

large_Dark Green and Yellow Grunge Security Business Card (1).png

medium_Dark Green and Yellow Grunge Security Business Card (1).png

small_Dark Green and Yellow Grunge Security Business Card (1).png

thumbnail_Dark Green and Yellow Grunge Security Business Card (1).png

Action Alert in San Diego: Help Stop the PrOTECT Act

**For Immediate Release**

**August 30, 2022**

**SAN DIEGO, CA -- August 30, 2022-** Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER) will host its first annual conference "[Fighting Preferences and Indoctrination in Education](https://cferfoundation.org/event-registration/)" at the University of San Diego, on this **Saturday, September 3rd, 2022**. This much-anticipated event will feature policy makers, academics, public advocates and community leaders who will all gather in Southern California to discuss the current state of public education, ramifications of various progressive ideological proposals in the American education, and proven strategies to counterbalance the illiberal trend of indoctrination in both higher education and K-12.

"CFER's first-ever conference will be a historic gathering of experts, advocates and key stakeholders to share success stories, informative resources and policy insights on how to build excellence and reclaim public education," commented Saga Conroy, CFER secretary. "I hope that our event will inform, engage and encourage concerned parents and citizens so that they can be better equipped to defend freedom, equal treatment and the merit-based principle."

While CFER was established in the wake of California's resounding victory defending the state constitutional principle of equal treatment (Prop. 209) in late 2020, we have made solid progress advancing our cause of equal rights through voter education, policy monitoring, robust research, legal advocacy and media outreach. At the same time, many of CFER's friends and allies have contributed to the growing, national movement for accountability, excellence and merit in public education. CFER's first annual conference seeks to synthesize the positive lessons and success experiences from the pro-education, pro-parents, pro-America movement.

We will be joined by an impressive lineup of nationally recognized speaker, including: **Hon. Gloria J. Romero**, former State Senator and the State Senate's Democratic majority leader; **Hon. Kevin Kiley**, State Assembly Member; **Dr. Williamson Evers**, Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education; **Dr. Lance Izumi**, Senior Director of Center for Education at the Pacific Research Institute; **Professor Gail Heriot**, University of San Diego Professor of Law and U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner; **Professor Richard Sander**, UCLA Jesse Dukeminier Professor in Law; **Professor Erec Smith**, York College Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Composition and Co-Founder of Free Black Thought; **Dr. Elana Fishbein**, Founder and President of No Left Turn in Education; **Dr. Joe Nalven**, Anthropologist, Philosopher and Former Faculty at the San Diego State University; **Hon. Mari Barke**, Orange County Board of Education President; **Hon. Chris Arend**, Paso Robles Joint Unified School District Board President; **Mr. Dan Morenoff**, Executive Director of the American Civil Rights Project; **Mr. Eli Steele**, Award-winning filmmaker and writer; **Mr. Wen Fa**, Senior Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation; **Mr. Michael Bowen**, Co-Founder of Free Black Thought.

small_flyer.png

thumbnail_flyer.png

flyer.png

CFER Hosts First Annual Conference in San Diego on September 3rd

**For Immediate Release**

**August 23, 2022**

**SAN DIEGO, CA – August 23, 2022**- Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER), in collaboration with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), has successfully forced the California State Senate to mandate significant changes to AB1604 so that the amended version complies with the State Constitution, specifically the constitutional ban on racial preferences. As a result of CFER’s monitoring work, the bill, also known as “California’s Upward Mobility Act of 2022” has been amended with portions that might lead to racial preferences and quotas being removed.

“PLF is encouraged that California will not be discriminating against those who wish to serve on a state board or commission, and hopefully there will be no further attempts to revive the discriminatory quota scheme,” said Andrew Quinio, PLF attorney. “The state should now focus on appointing the most talented volunteers regardless of their race and orientation, expanding opportunity for all civil servants, and promoting policies by its boards and commissions that foster prosperity for every Californian.”

“Promoting upward mobility is no excuse for instituting racial preferences,” commented Saga Conroy, CFER secretary. “The California state legislature did the right thing to amend AB1604 so that it aligns with the state constitution.”

Prior to being amended, AB 1604 contained a mandate for all state boards and commissions consisting of one or more volunteer members to have at least one board member or commissioner from an underrepresented community. In October 2021, AB1604’s precedent – AB105 was vetoed by Governor Newsom citing concerns about its constitutionality, concerns voiced by CFER as the bill’s principal organized opposition. This year, we teamed up with the PLF, continuing to shine a light on the unconstitutional nature of instituting discriminatory quotas for state boards and commissions. We consistently make the firm argument that quotas for these volunteer positions fundamentally violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as California’s constitutional guarantee of equal treatment (Prop. 209).

We are encouraged by this unexpected development, in lieu of a Democratic supermajority at the California State Legislature, as it demonstrates the success of CFER as a watchdog group that monitors state bills and other policy proposals pertaining to equality and merit. State lawmakers acknowledged the merits of our argument and demanded the bill author make large concessions so that the finalized proposal aligns with the State Constitution. At the same time, AB1604’s proponents included many powerful groups, such as the California Insurance Commission, Association of California State Employees, California Teachers Association, and Hewlett-Packard Company, the State Legislature has considered our well-grounded reasoning and warning that an unconstitutional bill would invite future legal challenges. 

large_bill.png

medium_bill.png

small_bill.png

thumbnail_bill.png

bill.png

CFER and PLF Prompted the California State Legislature to Amend the Upward Mobility Bill and Remove Unconstitutional Provisions

**For Immediate Release**

**July 25, 2022**

**SAN DIEGO, CA -- July 25, 2022** -- Today, Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER) and two individual co-plaintiffs, represented by [Pacific Legal Foundation](https://pacificlegal.org/) (PLF), filed a lawsuit challenging two Alameda County public contracting programs that impose race-based preferences for minority-owned enterprises.

"Racial quotas in public contracting, just as racial quotas elsewhere, are wrong and unconstitutional," said PLF senior attorney Wen Fa. "The government should not be depriving opportunities for small businesses engaged in public contracting---and the Alameda County public contracting programs are particularly pernicious because they deprive opportunities based on race."

Specifically, the Alameda County Public Works Agency has implemented the "Construction Compliance Program," while the General Services Agency oversees the "Enhanced Construction Outreach Program." Each program imposes a 15% "participation goal," which operates essentially as a set-aside, for companies certified as minority-owned businesses for county construction projects. The set-asides force general contractors to discriminate against subcontractors, and in many cases they work to exclude subcontractors in certain fields from obtaining jobs just because they are not minority-owned.

Both programs, funded by local taxpayers, some of whom are supporters and volunteers for CFER, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and California's constitutional ban on racial preferences (Article I, Section 31, codified through Proposition 209).

"California's voters sent a strong message that they are serious about protecting the time-honored right of equality before the law, in 1996 when they approved Proposition 209, and again in 2020 when they defeated its repeal," said Gail Heriot, CFER executive vice president. "Government favors on racial grounds have a pernicious past and do not belong in the 21st century."  

"The government should not be picking winners and losers on the basis of race or color," commented Chunhua Liao, co-plaintiff in the lawsuit and an Alameda County taxpayer, "Furthermore, no public agency should expend taxpayers' money to hand out race-preferential construction contracts. Alameda County is clearly violating the California Constitution and we will prevail in our legal challenge."

CFER's lawsuit is the first ever to defend California's constitutional guarantee of equal treatment in the court of law since the resounding success of efforts to safeguard it on the 2020 state ballot.

The case is *[Californians for Equal Rights Foundation vs. Alameda County](https://pacificlegal.org/case/californians-for-equal-rights-foundation-v-alameda-county/)*, filed in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County.

Construction-Building-Facebook-Cover-660x365 (1).png

small_Construction-Building-Facebook-Cover-660x365 (1).png

thumbnail_Construction-Building-Facebook-Cover-660x365 (1).png

CFER Sues Alameda County for Its Racial Preferences in Government Contracting

**For Immediate Release**

**June 28, 2022**

**SAN DIEGO, CA -- June 28, 2022-** On June 23, 2022, Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, issued [a memorandum](https://cferfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/jun22memocfird01.pdf) to the State Board of Education (SBE) on a decision by the California Department of Education (CDE) to postpone the decision-making timeline concerning California's revised Mathematics [Framework](https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/) to winter 2022-23. As a watchdog group that has monitored the drafting and reviewing processes and raised public awareness accordingly, Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER) welcomes CDE's latest move to postpone the timeframe of this controversial framework.

"Public participation works if we work it. I hope that this equity math framework would be postponed forever as it won't do any good for education excellence," commented Frank Xu, the president of CFER. "CDE's postponement of the 2022 Mathematics Framework, in spite of the political will for equity to be infused into K-12 teaching, is a victory for parents, citizens and groups that have advocated for merit and excellence in math education."

Superintendent Thurmond's letter to the SBE directly attributed this development to public and community input. He wrote: "In light of the significant amount of feedback received in the second round of public comment, the CDE will present an item to the SBE in July 2022 to revise the Schedule of Significant Events to move the current final action date from July 2022 to a future date, likely in the winter of 2022--23." Specifically, the State Government is responding positively to concerns regarding the new framework's ramifications on standards, accelerated learning and teaching pedagogy.

Since April 2021, CFER has worked diligently to inform the public on two field drafts of the math standards. In addition to [grassroots organizing](https://www.ocregister.com/2021/07/29/critical-race-math-meets-a-critical-public/), CFER has also participated in alliance building to demonstrate bipartisan opposition to the new framework's focuses on social justice and equity. We have partnered up with the Congressional Office of U.S. Representative Young Kim who courageously [led ](https://youngkim.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-young-kim-ca-gop-delegation-blast-controversial-ca-math-equity-framework)the California GOP congressional delegation in a letter rejecting the math equity framework's attacks on opportunities and merit. The State Board of Education promptly replied to the delegation, indicating that the state "will take the time needed to get this right." CFER has also written extensively about [the fact](https://www.ocregister.com/2021/12/20/democrats-dissenting-on-californias-woke-math-proposal/) that many who oppose the framework are Democrats and independents. 

We will continue to monitor future progress at the state level to introduce a new set of standards to teach math at the K-12 level and help amplify the public's demands for a scientifically rigorous and empirically sound framework for all California students.

Teal-And-Cream-Illustrated-Math-Class-Presentation-768x432.jpeg

medium_Teal-And-Cream-Illustrated-Math-Class-Presentation-768x432.jpeg

small_Teal-And-Cream-Illustrated-Math-Class-Presentation-768x432.jpeg

thumbnail_Teal-And-Cream-Illustrated-Math-Class-Presentation-768x432.jpeg

The California Department of Education Further Delays the New Math Framework Process

**Dear Palo Alto parents, community members and concerned citizens,**

Recently, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) adopted a strategic priority ["Equity & Excellence"](https://www.pausd.org/promise/priority-areas/equity-excellence) under "The Promise 2022-23" -- Systemwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT). Cloaked in pleasant-sounding euphemisms such as equity and positive school environment, this new policy priority will encourage unconstitutional and counterproductive racial quotas in grading, school discipline and course instruction. Please reach out to your school board members to voice your concerns regarding the many negative ramifications of this policies.

"Equity-based grading, discipline and education policies will facilitate the lowering of academic standards and excellence," commented Frank Xu, president of CFER. "More importantly, parents need to be alarmed by the fact that an emphasis on race proportionality will undoubtedly encourage race-based treatment of district students and lead to unlawful racial preferences, and even quotas."

In the name of equity, PAUSD's new equity and excellence initiative will surely attack merit and excellence. For example, the policy aims at increasing "the percentage of students in each identified/identifiable group who meet/exceed standards on state and local assessments," calibrating "grading and homework practices to provide consistent student experiences," and reducing "disproportionality for Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Pacific Islander in School disciplinary removals, Special Education, Enrollment in Career Technical Education and Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment courses." Additionally, to foster "equitable student outcomes," this policy will engage in "the development of a culturally responsive/antiracist mindset."

PAUSD's equity and excellence policy is a prime example of thought indoctrination taking over merit-based education. Both culturally responsive pedagogy and antiracism have deep ideological roots in a race-based dogma, named critical race theory (CRT). A scholarly article on the former topic openly [argues](https://gauisus.weebly.com/briggs---engaging-critical-race-theory-and-culturally-relevant-teaching.html) that "Culturally relevant curriculum reflects the images and concerns of children whom it teaches, promotes critical questioning, and is committed to social justice. Finally, culturally relevant teaching is grounded in CRT." By the same token, anti-racism [advocates for](https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/being-antiracist) race-based treatment: "Being antiracist is different for white people than it is for people of color. For white people, being antiracist evolves with their racial identity development."

Whether you have a child currently enrolled in PAUSD or not, you should be concerned about the school district's open endorsement and encouragement of race-based actions as a result of this policy. We urge you to get active and organized and voice your opposition to the "Equity & Excellence" policy priority. You can:

1\. Write to the PAUSD Board of Education at <board@pasusd.org> and to individual board members [here](https://www.pausd.org/about-us/board-of-education).

2\. Attend regular board meetings to give public comments regarding the policy at **Board Room, 25 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto.** The PAUSD Board holds board meetings every month and the next one will be on June 21st between 6:30 and 10:30 pm.

Thank you in advance for taking action!

Join Our Coalition

Report CRT Practices

Reject Liberate Ethnic Studies

Oppose Equity Math

Sign Pledges For Unity - Candidates

Sign Pledges For Unity - Voters

Legislative Reports

Alliance Building

Report a Problematic Bill

CRT in School Districts

CFER Research & More

Legal Advocacy

Report UC Discrmination in Admissions

Public

Policies

Research

Legal

Posts