Read the Full Amicus Brief Here.

In Mae M. v. Komrosky, the trial court upheld Temecula Valley Unified School District’s (“TVUSD”) resolution against teaching racist and divisive theories and policy requiring parental notification when students change their identity at school. Union plaintiffs appealed, contending that the district was attempting to establish an orthodoxy on political issues.

Notably, two months after failing to obtain the relief they sought from the Court, union plaintiffs and/or their allies filed an administrative complaint with the California Department of Education (“CDE”), and launched a recall campaign against a defendant board member.

On the same day the CDE complaint was filed against TVUSD, the Los Angeles Times published an interview with attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants Amanda Mangaser Savage, in which she explained that “the success of the teachers’ complaint with state officials [against Murrieta Valley Unified School District] could suggest a roadmap for elsewhere.” Ms. Mangaser Savage continued, “[w]hat we’re likely to see… is other educators submitting CDE complaints, which CDE would then handle similarly.”

Perhaps it was mere coincidence that Ms. Mangaser Savage’s prophecy was published on the same day the CDE complaint was filed against TVUSD, and sheer luck that her prediction came true and CDE handled the complaint the same way they handled the complaint against Murrieta Valley Unified School District. In addition to using an administrative agency to trump the adverse judicial ruling, plaintiff Temecula Valley Educators Association used another coercive avenue to enforce its orthodoxy: three months after their claim was rejected by the lower court in this case, the union’s political action committee funded a recall campaign against Defendant-Respondent Joseph Komrosky, buoyed by $36,300 from the California Teachers Association. Their recall campaign succeeded.

The politicization and orthodoxy in our public schools comes from the unions and the Democratic party.  It is the State and teachers’ unions imposing rigid and exclusive indoctrination of children with divisive race and gender theories, and the district merely adopted policies to mitigate the orthodoxy imposed by those entities.

The State and teachers unions relentlessly compel school districts to adopt an orthodoxy for inculcating their narrow view of social justice and punish any attempt to adopt a more balanced pedagogical approach through coercive measures such as recall elections, administrative fines, and lawsuits, among other tactics.

The party seeking to establish an orthodoxy is the State of California and its union allies, as demonstrated by their relentless push for radical social justice programming and elimination of local control over curriculum decisions. Their efforts are not limited to the single school district involved in this lawsuit. The State and its union allies have spread their orthodoxy far and wide using their immense power against anyone who dares to stand in their way.