As this year’s first night of Hanukkah has shown us, antisemitic violence is now a regular feature of life in Western society.
It has a well-orchestrated division of labor. In addition to its terrorists, its financiers and fundraisers, its organizers, newsletter writers, and television talking heads, there are also its rodeo clowns, its court jesters, and its jihadi cosplayers.
Quietly, diligently, and without fanfare, the California Department of Education (CDE) has begun issuing a steady stream of binding legal decisions and enforcement actions on the many cases of antisemitic discrimination that have been filed and appealed in response to the rise in antisemitic hate incidents in our schools since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas massacres in Israel.
Jew-hate has escalated into open warfare as their infantries have infiltrated California schools and universities and civic institutions. They’ve been poisoning the waters wherever they can — especially whenever Jews gather to celebrate the Zionist resilience we’ve been demonstrating since long before 164 BCE.
But there’s been a powerful response to the surge in antisemitic discrimination that’s become a regular feature of Jewish student life in California K-12 public schools. The government of the world’s fourth-largest economy started doing something revolutionary in plain sight — and you probably didn’t even notice.
Quietly, diligently, and without fanfare, the California Department of Education (CDE) has begun issuing a steady stream of binding legal decisions and enforcement actions on the many cases of antisemitic discrimination that have been filed and appealed in response to the rise in antisemitic hate incidents in our schools since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas massacres in Israel.
And holy golden calf, Batman — those incidents have involved matters of such shockingly evil and stupid employee misconduct, such negligent school supervision, and such grossly deficient legal investigations they’d make Moses and Aaron need a bong hit.
What kinds of cases are we talking about? We’ll go into more detail in part two of this series, but here are some of the most common violations.
Non-Palestinian teacher wore a keffiyeh during instruction and intimidated Jewish students against advocating for their own beliefs? Violation of the Education Code’s prohibition against teachers advocating for one side in a controversial issue and providing only limited, one-sided instruction that promotes only their own discriminatory bias against Jews. Ten-yard penalty.
Lessons portrayed Israelis as so-called “settler colonialists”? Violation of the Education Code’s prohibition against instructional materials reflecting adversely on persons based on their membership in a protected category like am Yisrael — the Jewish people.
Riled up about AB 715’s provisions requiring accurate and inclusive education about controversial topics such as Jews and Israel? Wait till you see how completely the requirement for accuracy and inclusiveness is woven through the fabric of the entire Education Code. AB 715 merely points out a few specific issues of education law and civil rights. The Education Code covers everything.
Worried about your own free speech rights as a public school teacher? Bad news! When teachers operate in a school-related setting, our speech is considered government speech — not personal speech. Our speech in classrooms receives no First Amendment protections — nothing like what university instructors enjoy.
Over the past year alone, the CDE has issued dozens and dozens of legal rulings against school districts that have been found to have committed acts of discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying against Jewish students under California law.
These cases have been filed and — when necessary — appealed by parents through the CDE’s Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) process over the last two years.
The cases have occurred in this way — and played out in this venue — because public education is a state function, not federal.
Each public school district is authorized by the CDE as the CDE’s local authority in that jurisdiction. If the CDE determines that a school district has screwed up and violated civil rights law, then the CDE’s judgment prevails. It alone makes the final decisions on how to interpret California’s education laws — known as the Education Code — and it issues the corrective actions that each school district is required to adhere to and document. If a district refuses to comply, then under the Education Code, the state and its agencies have both the legal authority and the power to compel compliance.
California’s codes on educational equity are a thing of great beauty.
Under the California Constitution, education is a fundamental right. For that reason, the Education Code spells out the equal rights, opportunities, and protections that apply to everyone in our state in any and all of its public education institutions.
In California, discrimination in schools isn’t just a matter of internal belief or even of speech — it’s an observable and tangible violation of educational equity. Discrimination is conduct — conduct or policy that treats similarly situated people differently based on their membership in a particular group, known in legal terms as a “protected characteristic,” such as race, ethnicity, national original, or religion, among others.
California’s Education Code lays out a clear system of rights and responsibilities, together with a theory of action that braids them together. Every California public school student has the right to participate fully in their educational process, and the Education Code both prohibits acts that impede equitable education and provides remedies to eradicate discriminatory acts based on protected characteristics.
The Education Code’s theory of action is simple but powerful: it states unequivocally that any actions of discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying within our schools create a hostile environment that jeopardizes the equal educational opportunity to which all students are entitled.
Yep — even Jews.
The Education Code’s sections on educational equity lay out the affirmative obligations of each and every school across California to provide an “accurate and inclusive education” — one in which all students feel welcome. Lessons and discussions of controversial topics cannot be one-sided or biased; they must include fair and honest presentations and discussions that reflect the lived reality of students on all sides of the conflict – even the ones an individual teacher doesn’t happen to like or agree with.
O.K., you might be thinking – but what does this have to with my personal social justice crusade as a K–12 teacher? Can’t I just read the Education Code and follow it?
Not so fast.
While the Education Code is written by the California Legislature, the binding administrative decisions about how any and all of those laws are to be applied in specific cases come from the CDE’s Education Equity Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) Office. Each of these cases reads like its own little Supreme Court case in miniature. There are now dozens and dozens of these in the Bay Area alone. We don’t even know yet the scale of the case law including the much larger Southern California portion of the state.
The bottom line is simple: the CDE is the highest-level arbiter of the law for California’s education system.
And its legal decisions and enforcements on discrimination aren’t just beyond argument.
They are the law.
This means every new CDE ruling on antisemitic discrimination in schools sends a message to every one of California’s 1,000-plus school districts. The message is that this is now the new reality and the binding guidance for everyone in California’s whole public education system — including all teachers, staff, students, and administrators.
And that’s the real revolution.
Among other things, it means that California now has what is probably the largest body of case law and precedent on antisemitic discrimination anywhere in the United States.
In parts two and three of this three-part series, we’ll take a tour through the major highlights and patterns in the case law so far, and identify what parents and students need next from the CDE and our elected officials.
This is going to be a sea change.