Dear San Dieguito parents, community members and concerned citizens,
On this Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 5pm, the San Dieguito Union High School District (SDUHSD) Board of Trustees will hold a public meeting, in which the Board will discuss and consider revisions to Board Policy 6144 on Controversial Issues (Item 10f). Please support SDUHSD Board’s policy changes to prohibit critical race theory (CRT).
The Board will update Board Policy 6144 to add: “Instruction shall not teach or include Critical Race Theory as part of the curriculum, instruction or educational materials. Critical Race Theory is not required by the State Board of Education as part of any of its content standards or framework.”
It is time that the SDUHSD Board consider the voices of community stakeholders against CRT, a divisive, race-based doctrine.
To support the updated Board Policy, you can:
1. Sign up to give a public comment regarding Item 10f beginning at 4:50 pm today.
2. Email SDUHSD Board Trustees about your support. They can be reached at:
Maureen “Mo” Muir, President: Maureen.Muir@sduhsd.net
Melisse Mossy, Vice-President: Melisse.Mossy@sduhsd.net
Katrina Young, Clerk: Katrina.Young@sduhsd.net
Michael Allman: Michael.Allman@sduhsd.net
3. Reach out via Facebook to express your support.
You can find CFER’s suggested talking points below and see our sample letters here.
Please take swift action to defend SDUHSD students’ equal education rights.
About Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER): We are a non-partisan and non-profit organization established following the defeat of Proposition 16 in 2020, with a mission to defend and raise public awareness on the cause of equal rights through public education, civic engagement and community outreach. In 1996, California became the first U.S. state to amend its constitution by passing Proposition 209 to ban racial discrimination and preferences. Prop. 209 requires that “the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” CFER is dedicated to educating the public on this important constitutional principle of equal treatment. www.Cferfoundation.org.
Sample Talking Points:
- I applaud the Board to consider banning CRT by updating Board Policy 6144. Viewpoint diversity, rather than thought conformity as advocated by CRT, should be respected.
- We support balanced and apolitical ways to increase equal access to public education. But anchoring the goal in an equity lens is biased, political and divisive.
- CRT should not be judged by its academic nitty-gritty, but by its real-world implications.
- We represent a diverse group of ordinary Americans of every stripe, united against the propagation of critical race theory in SDUHSD’s curriculums and practices.
- We recognize the existence of historical racism and present-day racial inequalities. But obsessing about racism distracts us from finding complex policy solutions.
- Any format of racism, including anti-racism, is racist, regardless of the purported intentions. Blaming racism on everything covers up true policy failures. We must hold our policy makers and public institutions accountable, instead of supporting a “moral crusade.”
- We welcome meaningful efforts to build understanding and increase appreciation for different cultures and ethnicities in our diverse country. But we oppose attempts to submerge these good intentions under a narrow political ideology.
- This narrow political ideology, commonly known as critical race theory, is often packaged and masqueraded with pleasant-sounding keywords including “anti-racism,” “racial healing,” “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and “restorative justice.”
- Instituting policy suggestions based on the CRT dogma, will lead to disparate, race-based treatment of students, teachers, and staff, opening up the district to legal liability for violating non-discrimination laws, civil rights protections, and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
- The last thing the district needs at a vulnerable time of learning losses is to perpetuate ideological indoctrination and political mandates of CRT.
- Any attempt at the district’s level to expend public funds to create additional social programs must be rolled out after thorough, prior consultation with parents, families, and community members.
- The pundits for CRT are NOT above the law or the democratic process of elections and reelections. As shown in legal and electoral cases in Nevada, California, Missouri, Virginia, and Southlake, Texas, parents who are equipped with knowledge on the incursions of CRT in public education have rallied and emerged as a strong interest group and a voting bloc. We demand accountability, transparency and after equal treatment of our children.