• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

In Temecula, a Christian student felt compelled to leave the room in the middle of class because her teacher called Christians “narrow-minded” in a discussion involving a recently approved bill that would clarify laws against discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender.

Stories such as this have led two Christian advocacy groups to file a lawsuit against the state on Nov. 27 because they believe this antidiscrimination bill is unconstitutional and vague, said Jennifer Monk, legal council for Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

The group, which is representing the California Education Committee, as well as The Alliance Defense Fund, is challenging Senate Bill 777, authored by California State Senator Sheila Kuehl and signed by the Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in October.

SB 777 clarifies discrimination statutes in the Education Code which are inconsistent with the Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, but does not actually change current state law, said Kuehl. The Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act, also authored by Kuehl, added to the hate crimes statute so that students in publicly funded schools and higher education institutions are protected from discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. But school districts found it inconvenient to refer to the penal code separately in order to understand the law, Kuehl said.

“(The Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act) means if someone beats you up because you’re a girl but you look like boy, you’re covered,” Kuehl said.

The law is primarily concerned with the safety of students, and approximately one-third of all students in California report facing some type of bias, said Alice Kesler, Director of Government Affairs for Equality California, the group which sponsored the bill.

But the two groups opposing the new law believe that it is problematic because it redefines the term “gender” in the Education Code. If the law is implemented, students will be allowed to define gender at their discretion regardless of their anatomy or how they choose to dress, Monk said.

Monk added that this would make it difficult for school administrators to know if they are in violation of the law.

“What will prevent the 250-pound linebacker from deciding he wants to share the locker room with the cheerleaders?” said Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, in a statement.

Monk said that such situations violate the privacy of students, teachers and other school officials. The group also claimed in their complaint that the law is vague because it amends a portion of Education Code which prevents schools from sponsoring activities that are discriminatory, which may not easily be defined.

But defenders of the bill said challenges to the law are unfounded because the term “gender” has been defined in the law since the passage of the Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act in 2000. Kesler said groups against SB 777 are labeling it as an expansion of the law when the bill only clarifies what has been in place for seven years.

SB 777 does not directly impact UCLA students because they are already protected by the antidiscrimination law passed in 2000, Kuehl said. But, in a statement, Alliance said the bill is also applicable to post-secondary institutions.