Quick Take
A new California law this year brings stronger protections against antisemitism – and new standards for what is taught – in Santa Cruz County classrooms, writes Aptos resident Gil Stein. Teachers unions and other opponents warned that AB 715 would silence teachers and interfere with discussion of Israel and the Middle East, but courts have so far rejected that argument. Here, Stein raises the question: Is demanding accuracy and freedom from discriminatory bias really an attack on free speech?
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
As the school year begins, there is a new law that affects all school districts in California known as Assembly Bill 715, which was co-authored by Central Coast Assemblymember Dawn Addis. The votes in support of the bill were near-unanimous, but the bill faced strong opposition from teachers unions, civil liberties organizations, and Arab American, Muslim and Palestinian advocacy groups.
They claimed that the bill infringed on free speech and academic freedom and could chill discussion about Israel and Palestine.
The law became effective on Jan. 1 and mandated that the K-12 curriculum should be factually accurate and free of bias. The bill was sponsored by the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and was a response to growing antisemitism in the United States, which I believe was in part due to curriculum in the ethnic studies classes that portrayed Jews and Israel in a negative light. In addition, there was growing concern about teachers interjecting their own personal views regarding Jews and the Jewish state.
Assemblymember Richard Zbur, who co-authored the bill and is not Jewish, spoke on behalf of many of his constituents who were deeply offended by some of the inaccuracies and biased nature of certain elements of the course curriculum. For example, Israelis were described as white colonizers and Jews as white oppressors.
Many of Zbur’s constituents are Iranian Jews whose ancestors had lived in the Middle East for nearly 2,700 years. Another example of this skewed curriculum is the scant mention of the Holocaust and the omission of the Armenian genocide. While portraying Europeans as colonizers, little, if any, mention is made of the Muslim Ottoman Empire and how the Arabic language and Islam spread from the Arabian Peninsula to North Africa, the rest of the Middle East as well as parts of Asia and Europe.
Pointing this out does not defame Islam, but it does put colonialism in context. Singling out one ethnic group for the color of their skin or their national origin or religious beliefs is not acceptable, and that is what AB715 tried to address.
Almost before the ink was dry from the governor’s signature, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) filed for injunctive relief in federal court in San Jose to halt the implementation of the law. It claimed that the new law, which had not yet taken effect, infringed on free speech and was vague and unconstitutional.
The request for an injunction was denied.
The ADC then tried two more times to persuade Judge Noël Wise, a Biden appointee, that AB715 violated the First Amendment.
The argument that a law designed to combat anti-Jewish discrimination and promote factually accurate, unbiased education somehow discriminates against Arab Americans was a losing argument in court. If accuracy and freedom from discrimination are the standards, where exactly is the discrimination?
On July 28, Wise issued her decision dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint.
The case, Prichett v. Bonta, is significant for several reasons dealing with education law and the First Amendment. Opponents of the bill argued unsuccessfully that the law infringes on the rights of teachers to teach about the conflict in the Middle East.
This scare tactic did not work in the Legislature, nor did it at this stage sway Wise.
The law does not forbid discussion of controversial issues; only that such instruction be free of bias and factually accurate. It is well settled law that K-12 teachers do not have academic freedom to say whatever they want in our public schools.
Teachers have their First Amendment rights to free speech outside the classroom, but in the classroom they do not have the right to proselytize or advocate their personal political beliefs.
This should not be controversial.
Yet the teachers unions and some anti-Israel activists appear to view the classroom as a tool for spreading propaganda. Whether AB715 can stem the tide of antisemitism remains to be seen, but at the very least, it should provide additional standards for instructional material and classroom lessons.
It is a victory for common sense and for quality education without political agendas.
Gil Stein is a UC Santa Cruz graduate, longtime local attorney and longtime pro-Israel activist and writer. He has also given lectures at UCSC and San Jose State University.
