An impressive list of conservative speakers

Lots of top-shelf speakers this year.

That said, there were enough high points during the event to make up for some of the challenges. The most enjoyable highlights in the opinion of this humble attendee? Well two come to mind. One involves

Meanwhile in the booth area...

Some Encouraging TPUSA Stats

Thank you Turning Point!

Carry on...

California Education Code (EC) Section 218.3(b)(1) requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to finalize the development of online training curriculum to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) cultural competency training for teachers and other certificated employees on or before July 1, 2025. In addition, the CDE is required to develop an online training delivery platform to host the training content.

California EC Section 218.3(c) states that beginning with the 2025–26 school year, and continuing through the 2029–30 school year, a local educational agency (LEA) shall provide and require a minimum of one hour of LGBTQ+ cultural competency training annually to all teachers and other certificated employees serving pupils in grades seven to twelve over the five-year period.

California teachers and administrators for whom the PRISM LGBTQ training runs counter to their religious and moral values are asked to contact The National Center for Law and Policy, who can provide guidance with filing an appropriate religious exemption.

Following law school graduation, while starting his civil litigation practice, he was invited to become an affiliate attorney of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), from which Dean has received extensive training in pro-family, pro-life and pro-religious liberty matters at ADF’s outstanding National Litigation Academies (NLA). Because of Dean’s pro-bono work, he was invited to receive special training at ADF’s advanced NLA. Dean is proud to be an ADF affiliate attorney and member of ADF’s honor guard.

The Children's Education Opportunity Act is the latest attempt at providing California parents maximum flexibility when it comes to the education of their children.

2. Parents choose the best education option for their child
Parents select an eligible school that suits their child best.Options range from public and charter schools to private, faith-based institutions, and homeschooling. The chosen school coordinates with the ESA Trust board to allocate funds for educational expenses. Parents do not handle the money directly; transactions occur between the state-controlled ESA and the selected school.

3. Covered education expenses under the Education Savings Account
The ESA covers various educational expenses, including

•  transportation to and from school and school-related activities

4. Unused ESA funds roll over annually and accrue interest
Any unused funds within the student's ESA carry over each year, accruing interest to support future educational expenses throughout the student's life. This is not a voucher program where you lose the funding if you do not use it that year.

If you would like to help in the effort to gather enough signatures to get this important initiative on the 2026 ballot, please let us know.

Important Court Case Wins

The district’s withdrawal upholds a preliminary injunction issued in May 2025, requiring schools to provide three days’ advance notice and opt-outs whenever gender identity content is presented in the district’s “buddy” mentoring programs.

The case centered on Shea Encinas, a fifth-grade student who was forced to teach a kindergartner about gender identity using the controversial book My Shadow Is Pink — despite Shea’s and his family’s deeply held Christian beliefs.

National Attorneys Applaud Decision
Two legal organizations served as co-counsel for the Encinas family: The National Center for Law & Policy (NCLP) and First Liberty Institute.

Dean Broyles, President of the National Center for Law & Policy, celebrated the outcome:

“The Supreme Court’s decision affirms that parents have the right to know what their children are being taught in school, and to opt out when that teaching interferes with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Our clients are vindicated now that the District appears to be aligning its policies with Supreme Court precedent, as a result of this litigation.”

Kayla Toney, Counsel for First Liberty Institute, added:

Federal Judge Rules California Parental Exclusion Policies Are Unconstitutional, Issues Class-Wide Permanent Injunction.

San Diego, CA- In a landmark class-action ruling, Thomas More Society achieved a historic victory in Mirabelli, et al. v. Olson, et al., ending California’s gender secrecy policies and restoring transparency and parental involvement in public education. The decision and federal court order issuing a class-wide permanent injunction—issued by U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez just days before Christmas—secures justice not only for teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West who began the lawsuit, but for all parents and teachers harmed by these policies statewide.

Elizabeth and Lori, faithful Christians with decades of teaching experience, loved their jobs and dedicated themselves to helping children thrive in the classroom. Under California’s Parental Exclusion Policies, children had an unqualified right to engage in a social transition to the opposite gender at school—forcing all teachers to use opposite-sex pronouns and a new name—and teachers were required to conceal that gender transition from the child’s parents absent the child’s affirmative consent.  

“Elizabeth, Lori, and the parents who stepped forward as class representatives to fight for families everywhere are true heroes,” Jonna added. “Whether facing professional retaliation or protecting their own children, they never wavered in their commitment to faith, family, and the truth. They challenged a system that forced deception and put children at risk. Thanks to their courage, truth and justice prevailed and these unconstitutional policies can now finally be placed in the dustbin of history.”

“We are profoundly grateful for today’s ruling,” said Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West in a joint statement. “This has been a long and difficult journey, and we are humbled by the support we’ve received along the way. We want to extend our deepest thanks to Thomas More Society and to everyone who stood by us, prayed for us, and encouraged us from the very beginning.”

“We loved our jobs, our students, and the school communities we served,” Mirabelli and West continued. “But we were forced into an impossible position when school officials demanded that we lie to parents—violating not only our faith, but also the trust that must exist between teachers and families. No educator should ever be placed in that situation. This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents. We are so thankful that this chapter is finally closed and that justice has prevailed.”

“The State knew this was a losing legal battle and tried to pull out every lawyer’s trick in the book to avoid responsibility,” added Jeffrey M. Trissell, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and attorney at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “The Court saw right through this blatant gamesmanship. It’s an absurdity that California elected officials went out of their way to deceive parents and punish honest and faithful educators who dared to challenge their twisted political agenda.”

As the case progressed, numerous parents who had been directly harmed by these policies approached Thomas More Society. One family who joined the lawsuit only learned that their child was being addressed by a different name at school after a tragic suicide attempt. Recognizing the sweeping nature of the constitutional violations, the Court certified the lawsuit as a class action, meaning that every California parent and teacher who objects to these policies now receives justice.

“This case exposed a troubling pattern of agenda-driven adults injecting political ideology into schools, undermining trust between educators and parents, and ultimately harming children,” said Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “Most reasonable people agree: schools should be about teaching the basics—reading, writing, arithmetic—not confusing students about gender identity. This ruling restores focus to real education and honoring the centuries-long belief that parents alone have the right to direct their child’s moral and religious upbringing, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year.”

The case also revealed the extreme lengths California education officials went to evade responsibility.

They misled the court by claiming these policies were no longer enforced, only to be caught red-handed enforcing them in mandatory teacher training a week before the summary judgment hearing on November 17. As a result, the Court’s order specifically directs California to add the following statement “in a prominent place” in that training:  

“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.”

“Thomas More Society is proud to have represented Elizabeth, Lori, and the anonymous plaintiffs: Teacher Jane Roe, Teacher Jane Boe, the Poe Family and the Doe Family,” said Breen. “They never sought to be the face of this fight, yet their courage has transformed the lives of families and educators not only in California but perhaps the entire country. We will always defend the religious freedom of teachers and families and ensure that parents retain their constitutional right to raise their children in alignment with their families’ values.”

Christian Teachers Must Stand Strong!

                   Guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior...  Psalm 25:5

is no mere professional development. It is an ideological loyalty test demanding that educators affirm beliefs about gender and sexuality that directly contradict biblical truth.

Yet there is good news: Christian teachers do not have to surrender their faith to keep their jobs. Under both the First Amendment and federal and state civil rights laws, they have the right to request a religious exemption from trainings that violate their sincerely held beliefs.

That’s why the National Center for Law and Policy, led by constitutional attorney Dean Broyles, is stepping forward to defend teachers of faith who refuse to compromise their convictions. “Teachers’ civil rights do not evaporate when they enter our public schools,” Broyles said. “California’s coercive mandatory PRISM LGBTQ identity cultural competency training directly conflicts with and seeks to actively undermine the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of California families, students, and public-school teachers.”

What the Law Demands — and Why It Is Unconstitutional

Under AB 5, public school teachers in grades 7-12 must complete the PRISM Training, or a closely aligned alternative, which instructs participants to affirm concepts like gender fluidity and to use students’ self-selected pronouns, even when doing so violates their conscience. The program also directs teachers to withhold information from parents about a child’s gender identity if the child has not given permission, falsely claiming that minors have a “right to privacy” from their own parents.

The training explicitly labels traditional Christian beliefs as harmful “heteronormativity,” “homophobic,” and “transphobic,” and equates adherence to biblical truth with discrimination. In essence, teachers are told they must deny their faith or face discipline.

A recent federal court ruling in Mirabelli v. Olson reaffirmed that public school districts cannot compel teachers to lie to parents or affirm gender ideology in violation of their faith. The court condemned such policies as a “trifecta of harm” to teachers, students, and parents. That decision opened the door for teachers statewide to challenge similar unconstitutional policies.

One Teacher’s Example of Courage

One Southern California teacher, represented by Broyles, has formally requested a religious accommodation from his district. In Broyles’s letter to school officials, he explains that the teacher’s faith requires him to speak truthfully, honor parents’ rights, and affirm that God created humanity male and female (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4). Participating in PRISM training would force him to endorse falsehoods about human sexuality and violate his conscience before God.

“The government has no legitimate place marginalizing, shaming, and demonizing the sincere religious beliefs of its good citizens,” Broyles wrote. “State and local LGBTQ+ laws or policies do not supersede well-established federal constitutional rights or a teacher’s right to be free from religious discrimination.”

Broyles also warned that districts cannot retaliate against teachers who request religious accommodation, and that his office will be monitoring any cases of harassment or discrimination.

Per a post on X by Mike Netter (@nettermike):

When Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 5 into law, few Californians realized just how coercive its requirements would become for faithful Christian teachers. As of this school year, every certificated public school employee working with students in grades 7–12 must complete an hour-long “LGBTQ Cultural Competency” course annually. But make no mistake, this state-mandated training is no mere professional development. It is an ideological loyalty test demanding that educators affirm beliefs about gender and sexuality that directly contradict biblical truth.

Yet there is good news: Christian teachers do not have to surrender their faith to keep their jobs.Under both the First Amendment and federal and state civil rights laws, they have the right to request a religious exemption from trainings that violate their sincerely held beliefs.

That’s why the National Center for Law and Policy, led by constitutional attorney Dean Broyles, is stepping forward to defend teachers of faith who refuse to compromise their convictions. “Teachers’ civil rights do not evaporate when they enter our public schools,” Broyles said. “California’s coercive mandatory PRISM LGBTQ identity cultural competency training directly conflicts with and seeks to actively undermine the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of California families, students, and public-school teachers.”

What the Law Demands—and Why It’s Unconstitutional
Under AB 5, public school teachers in grades 7-12 must complete the PRISM Training, or a closely aligned alternative, which instructs participants to affirm concepts like gender fluidity and to use students’ self-selected pronouns, even when doing so violates their conscience. The program also directs teachers to withhold information from parentsabout a child’s gender identity if the child has not given permission, falsely claiming that minors have a “right to privacy” from their own parents.

The training explicitly labels traditional Christian beliefs as harmful “heteronormativity,” homophobic,” and “transphobic,” and equates adherence to biblical truth with discrimination. In essence, teachers are told they must deny their faith or face discipline.

 the Constitution says otherwise. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers must provide reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. Furthermore, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and prohibits the government from compelling speech or belief.

A recent federal court ruling in Mirabelli v. Olsonreaffirmed that public school districts cannot compel teachers to lie to parents or affirm gender ideology in violation of their faith. The court condemned such policies as a “trifecta of harm” to teachers, students, and parents. That decision opened the door for teachers statewide to challenge similar unconstitutional policies.

A Call for Courage

Many Christian teachers are afraid. They worry that refusing the training might cost them their jobs or reputations. Others are tempted to simply “click through” the training and answer as the state demands, just to keep the peace. But as followers of Christ, we are called to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) and to stand firm in truth even when pressured to conform.

CFC’s Call to Action

California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt is urging both teachers and school board members to take a public stand for truth.

“Christian teachers should not quietly comply with a state mandate that calls evil good and good evil,” said Greg Burt, Vice President of California Family Council. “By standing up for their own rights, teachers are also defending the civil rights of parents and students, protecting every family’s freedom to live and speak according to biblical truth. We need courageous believers in every classroom and on every school board willing to draw a line and say, ‘We will not bow.’ Our children need to see adults who are unashamed to stand for God’s truth about life, family, and gender, no matter the cost.”

Take Action

If you are a Christian teacher being forced to take this training, you have legal options. Contact the National Center for Law and Policy for assistance in drafting a religious accommodation request. You can also reach out to California Family Council for resources and support.

Now is not the time for silent compliance. The next generation of students is watching. When faithful teachers stand firm, they bear witness to the truth that God, not the government, defines human identity, morality, and truth.

Just as Daniel, Esther, and the three Hebrew men stood unashamed before kings and rulers, California’s Christian teachers must now stand before their school boards and declare:

“We will not bow.”

Spotlight from Parents' Rights In Education (PRE)

A new statewide poll shows 57% of Colorado voters believe their K–12 public schools are headed in the wrong direction—a sharp rebuke to the state’s education establishment. What’s driving the frustration?

• Academic performance continues to stagnate post-COVID
• Families feel crowded out of major decisions
• Politicization inside classrooms remains a top concern
• Many voters say funding is less the issue than how funds are used

Parents have long voiced these concerns at school board meetings, but now the broader public sees the same red flags: schools moving away from academic focus, transparency, and parents’ rights.

This poll is more than a data point—it signals a cultural shift. Parents’ Rights In Education is not a fringe issue; it’s mainstream. Colorado families—and voters—want schools to return to academics, age-appropriate curriculum, and respect for parental authority.

New Jersey: School Board Passes a Strong Opt-Out & Transparency Policy

Meanwhile, in Colts Neck, New Jersey, the local school board approved a robust “parents’ rights” policy that affirms:

• Parents may opt their children out of lessons conflicting with family values or religious beliefs
• Schools must provide clear, advance notice of sensitive or controversial instructional materials
• Parents—not administrators—hold the primary authority over their children’s upbringing
• Curriculum transparency is required
• Staff must notify parents about sensitive student issues

In an era when many districts across the nation push parents away from critical information, Colts Neck is moving in the opposite direction—back toward partnership with families.

PRE leaders across the country can point to policies like this as evidence that local action works. This is exactly how school districts change: elect strong board members, show up, and stay engaged.

Why This Matters: A National Mandate for Parents’ Rights

Colorado’s polling and New Jersey’s board action are two sides of the same national trend:

Parents expect transparency.
Parents expect accountability.
Parents expect to be respected—not managed.

And where parents show up—students win, communities win, and trust in public education begins to recover.

For PRE supporters, these stories offer both clarity and momentum. The movement is working!

Supporting Free Speech at School Board Meetings

Not dissuaded by poor track record in court on regulating speech, the attorney general warned school board members they risk removal for not cutting off speech that questions gender identity, criticizes policies that prioritize it over sex.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has repeatedly run afoul of federal judges in her quest to regulate the speech of pro-life pregnancy centers, but that hasn't dissuaded her from trying to control speech on other polarizing issues in which courts have rebuked censors.

School board members and parents are now suing the AG and New York Education Commissioner Betty Rosa for allegedly threatening to remove the former from office for "publicly supporting sex-separated interscholastic sports and school facilities" or "using pronouns that correspond to biological sex" at board meetings, or even for letting the latter say the same things.

Filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the First Amendment lawsuit takes aim at guidance letters, a tool frequently used by AGs and regulators to share their interpretation of the law without bringing formal enforcement action that could trigger litigation, a sort of sword of Damocles hanging over potential targets.

Such letters were widely used in the Obama administration to threaten federal funding for colleges that resisted its interpretation of Title IX as restricting due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. Courts repeatedly blocked the Biden administration's similar Title IX regulation, all the way up to its final two weeks in power.

James and Rosa teamed up on a guidance letter this spring on "harassment and bullying at school board meetings," citing "some board members who have made, and encouraged, comments during board meetings that demean and stigmatize LGBTQ+ students."

They didn't mince words on what speech they interpret as prohibited under the state's Dignity for All Students Act: "attacks on school support for LGBTQ+ student groups and on transgender and gender-expansive students’ rights to use facilities, including restrooms and locker rooms, or participate on school athletic teams consistent with their gender identity."

Such comments, by board or audience members, may violate student privacy, "create a hostile school environment" and expose districts to "costly litigation," they said. 

The guidance also specifies that school boards should shut down "baseless allegations that transgender students’ identities and experiences are illegitimate, or that their mere presence in school spaces and participation in school activities is harmful to other students," and stop individuals from "intentionally misgender[ing] district students."

Boards must "adhere to state laws and regulations that safeguard students from harassment, bullying, and the disclosure of protected student information," and members "may be removed from office when they willfully neglect their duty or violate legal protections for students in their districts," the letter warns.

"Letitia James’ policies that say students cannot speak at their own school board meetings about the stress and problematic policies around accommodating trans athletes are anti-American and anti-constitutional," SLF President Kim Hermann said.

"This new lawsuit is especially timely" because a plaintiff's district is embroiled in an active debate over gender identity, SFL said. 

The New York Civil Liberties Union petitioned Rosa on behalf of a transgender student two months earlier, asking her to stop Long Island's Massapequa Union Free School District from enforcing its new policy requiring students to use the restrooms and locker rooms for their sex, not their gender identity. (It offers gender-neutral options as well.)

NYCLU referred to Rosa's joint statement with James in February in response to President Trump's executive orders against gender identity in schools and athletics, which the duo called "legally ineffective" without action from Congress and at odds with state law.

Massapequa sued Rosa Oct. 21 when she ordered the district to let males in female facilities, so as not to violate federal law as interpreted by the Trump administration and risk its funding, and amended its complaint Wednesday. The commissioner then blocked Locust Valley School District's "nearly identical" policy, the New York Post reported Dec. 2. 

Rosa has financially benefited from her sex, which unlike gender identity is immutable. The commissioner "quietly" got a $155,000 raise on top of her $120,000 pension, the Albany Times Union reported in January, which the Board of Regents defended on the basis that "female leaders" have "historically been subjected to lower compensation rates than their peers."

Rosa's department is "confident it will prevail in this lawsuit," spokesperson Karen Male told Just the News Thursday, arguing they lack legal standing. "The plaintiffs have not identified any injury to which they have been subjected; they merely express their feelings that, at some point, they fear removal for engaging in unspecified speech."

James's office did not respond when asked for its response to the lawsuit and how the guidance comports with First Amendment precedents.

'A law that dictates how to curate' speech faces highest judicial scrutiny

The SFL plaintiffs are led by Kerry Wachter, who chairs the Massapequa school board and whom Hermann credited with letting students "speak up and express their fears and discomforts with biological males changing in their girls locker room" and how it often "distract[s] them from learning throughout the school day."

Another is Rotterdam-Mohonasen Central School District Board of Education member Danielle Ciampino, who campaigned in part on her views that sex is immutable, students should use restrooms and play sports based on their sex and that preferred pronouns are a "false acknowledgment that an individual can change his or her sex."

The lawsuit invokes their intended actions — letting parents and community members "speak viewpoints the Guidance Letter prohibits" and "use pronouns that correspond to third persons’ biological sex" — to show they have legal standing, since James and Rosa said officials "may" be removed for doing so.

The other plaintiffs are Rockville Centre Union Free School District parents Sarah Rouse and Issac Kuo, who spoke against gender identity policies at board meetings before the guidance letter but now fear the board will reprimand, censor and "publicly brand [them] as harassing and bullying children" if they do so again.

The board "has made clear, through both a presentation by its legal counsel and statements by its president," that it treats Rosa's guidance letters as legally binding and fears she will pursue action against the district, including defunding, if it flouts her guidance, the suit says.

The lawsuit heavily relies on recent legal precedents in the federal appeals courts, especially the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which just last month banned a school district from punishing students for the "commonplace use of biological pronouns" and in 2021 banned a public college from forcing faculty to use students' preferred pronouns.

The 6th Circuit refused to block content-based school board comment rules on procedural grounds in September in Moms for Liberty's challenge, but two judges emphasized that "happy talk" requirements "necessarily discriminated" between opposing ideas — exactly what the New York guidance letter does by labeling "pure speech" as "harassment," SLF says.

The lawsuit only cites one recent ruling by the controlling 2nd Circuit, which remanded a challenge to New York's "hateful conduct" law to decide whether the statute forces tech platforms to adopt the state's unconstitutional definition of "hateful conduct."

The 2nd Circuit said "a law that dictates how to curate or compile others’ speech is generally a content-based regulation subject to strict scrutiny," the most demanding legal standard for governments to meet. SFL said the guidance letter forces school board members to "curate" speech to create "the false impression that all speakers agree with their message."

Several First Amendment precedents across federal courts this decade prohibit the government from discriminating against "parent and community-member viewpoints on important school-related issues expressed at public comment portions of local school board meetings," the suit says, including the 11th Circuit in another Moms for Liberty challenge.

"We cannot permit a state official to oust an elected representative of the people on the bald ground that she voices unsympathetic political views," the 2nd Circuit ruled 20 years ago in a First Amendment retaliation case by a school board member removed from office on allegedly fabricated claims of sprinkling "a powdery substance" in front of a peer's door.

The suit notes last year's reinstatement of parent activist Maud Maron, now running for Manhattan district attorney against Democrat Alvin Bragg, to a school board-like council from which she was removed for criticizing anti-Israel speech. The speech code she violated is likely unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati concluded.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the guidance letter, its implementation and enforcement are unconstitutional, injunctions, nominal damages and attorney's fees.

Support School Board Trustees

Who Protect Children and Promote Liberty

California Chapters of Moms for Liberty Endorse Sonja Shaw 

for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Mark Your Calendar...

Parents used to warn their children about strangers in a white van.

Today, the danger is already in their hands — on phones, tablets, and gaming platforms.
Online grooming and exploitation are rising rapidly, and traffickers are increasingly using digital spaces to reach children here in the U.S. Many families don’t realize how quickly predators can gain trust — or how exposed kids can be online.
 
On January 11, 2026, in recognition of National Human Trafficking Awareness Day, Our Rescue invites you to Join the Fight by getting informed — and taking action.
 
The organization is  hosting a free educational webinar, “Digital White Van,” in collaboration with experts from DHS’s Blue Campaign and Know2Protect, technology and cyber-safety leaders, and a trafficking survivor. You will learn how online grooming happens and practical steps families can take to help keep children safer.

There are many ways to stand up for children on January 11:

• Register for the “Digital White Van” webinar and learn how to spot risks and start informed conversations.
• Take the Pledge to help protect children and commit to ongoing awareness.
• Wear Blue to show solidarity with survivors and spark conversations in your community.
• Ask 11, Give 11 — invite 11 friends to learn about the issue and consider an $11 gift to support the work.
• Build community awareness by sharing resources at home, at church, or at school.
• Shop the Blue Awareness Collection , where every purchase supports prevention education and survivor care.

January 13 2026 will be a momentous date at the U.S. Supreme Court. The court will be hearing two cases that will determine if women's sports will be kept for women.  The two cases in question, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. will decide whether the word "sex" as used in Title IX is meant to include males who think that they are women, and whether the attribute of sex is protected under the Equal Protection Clause.

Attend the rally if you can. Riley Gaines and others will be speaking.  When offering comments you don't have to speak from memory. It is perfectly acceptable to read a statement off of a sheet of paper, a cell phone, or a laptop.

America 250 in 2026

Moms for Liberty: Helping to foster a renewed culture of service and patriotism...

Pornographic Books In School Libraries

The campaign to purge pornographic books from public school libraries is gaining serious momentum. Take Back the Classroom has widened its reach — new states, new districts, and yes, all 50 states are now covered..

Just in the last month more than fifty new book reports have been added to the database. The impact is so strong that even the American Library Association and its allies have started talking about the work being done. The mission is clear: to equip parents with concrete, verifiable information so they can expose what their children are being taught and reclaim their rights. Parents, not schools, should have the final say about what their kids are exposed to.

A couple of entries from the database:

Warning: R.E.M.O.V.E book reports contain explicit content.

TakeBacktheClassroom.com now provides a powerful tool to equip parents and communities with a means to stand up, speak out, and pull explicit material out of school districts once and for all.

What Sets Karen's Effort Apart

Nationwide Library Database:

We maintain the only nationwide database that allows parents and community members to look directly into their public school library collections. Users can identify sexually explicit books available on the shelves and review excerpts from each title.

Focused on Results, Not Ratings:

We do not assign ratings to books. While rating systems can offer educational context, they ultimately work against the goal of removing sexually explicit materials. Ratings often suggest that such content simply needs to be labeled or categorized rather than eliminated. This weakens effective action. In short, ratings hinder the cause, our focus is on results. (More information about our decision not to use ratings will be available soon.)

Book Reports in Spanish:

We provide book reports in Spanish to ensure that all families, regardless of language, can access critical information about what is in their children’s schools.

Free Resources to Support Action:

Our website offers a comprehensive library of free materials to equip parents, advocates, and community leaders who are working to protect students from sexually explicit books. Resources include:

• ·      A step-by-step guide for the book removal process

• ·      Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

• ·      A model challenge letter to formally request book removal

• ·      Guidance for addressing objections and opposition

• ·      A model policy for school boards to adopt 

• ·      Personalized staff support for those actively working to remove books

Ongoing Education and Updates:

We maintain a regularly updated blog featuring the latest developments related to sexually explicit materials in schools. In addition, we offer training webinars to educate, empower, and connect individuals engaged in this important work.

At every level, our focus remains the same, to provide clear, practical tools that lead to meaningful results and protect the hearts and minds of our children.

Spotlight: Why We Must Protect Puberty

So, you might very well ask: why on earth do we need a Memorandum of Understanding to Protect the Role of Puberty in Adolescent Development? It sounds absurd, doesn’t it? But in today’s upside-down world – where we have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that men aren’t women – we’re forced to defend the most basic biological facts and fundamental realities. It’s a mind-melting, maddening waste of time and energy. And yet, if this is what it takes to stop harmful medical experimentation on children’s bodies, then count me in.

The Memorandum of Understanding on the Role of Puberty in Adolescent Development does two things: it safeguards the crucial role of puberty in adolescent development and it highlights the responsibility of adults to protect children. Genspect has made the MoU available on this website where organisations and parent groups from around the world can sign up, download the compliance badge, and display it on their own sites and social media to show that they are informed, engaged, and committed to protecting children and teenagers from avoidable harm. We've also issued a Statement of Concern that applies the MoU's principles by opposing the proposed NHS puberty blocker trial. Individuals can sign this statement and have their names displayed on the website.

Puberty is not an optional stage of development; it is a remarkable and transformative process. More than a biological milestone, it is a profound experience that helps shape our adult identities. While a small number of individuals with Differences of Sex Development (DSDs) may not undergo puberty in the typical way,

these rare exceptions do not diminish the critical developmental importance of puberty for the vast majority of children and adolescents. The cognitive, emotional, physical, sexual, and social changes it brings are still not fully understood – a testament to the complexity and dynamism of this pivotal life stage.

At ten years old, most children are still immersed in their immediate world – thinking about fun, sweets, Mammy, Daddy, their friends, and upcoming treats. As they begin to mature physically, sexually, and cognitively, their capacity for more expansive thinking grows. By their early twenties, they have typically emerged as fully-fledged adults, with a far more nuanced understanding of themselves and the world around them.

When a child is put on puberty blockers, it is not only their sexual development that is halted; their entire developmental trajectory is disrupted. They do not experience a sexual awakening, nor do they go through a romantic one. While their peers are navigating first crushes – just as young children play at house, teenagers play at love – these essential developmental rehearsals are missing. Yet it is through these early, often awkward experiences that we prepare for one of life’s most fundamental evolutionary tasks; to form intimate bonds and, ultimately, to reproduce.

Of course, some adults will choose not to reproduce, and others may be unable to, but puberty lays the biological and psychological foundation that makes this choice possible in the first place.

The loneliness of being human often strikes with full force during adolescence; this is when a young person first begins to feel the deep yearning to fall in love. It’s no wonder so many adolescents turn to poetry, music, and art for comfort. As the brain becomes more complex, teenagers confront their aloneness and embark on the long, often difficult search for a mate – a search that underpins our most fundamental human drives.

The first-love relationships that teenagers experience further complexify the mind as they begin to realise that they can love someone and hate someone at the same time. Few of us remain simplistic once we have experienced the pain of unrequited love – and for most, this rite of passage typically takes place during adolescence.

But none of this is open to the puberty-blocked teenager. Instead they remain frozen in a childlike state. Like Peter Pan, they are happy to have friends and go on adventures, but they don't experience any deeper yearnings to find a mate or to grapple with life’s more profound emotional questions.

The Experimental Medically Constructed Adult

Puberty is a complex developmental cascade driven by the activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis. This intricate system initiates the maturation of reproductive organs, the development of secondary sex characteristics, the onset of fertility, and profound physical, neurological, and emotional transformations.

Puberty-blocked individuals undergo a chemically induced facsimile of puberty – a kind of partial sexual awakening disconnected from the natural maturation of their reproductive systems. For example, a teenage girl given testosterone may develop an increased libido, but because her ovaries, uterus, and other reproductive structures have not matured, the experience is largely pharmacological and not integrated into a fully developed adult body. It is a chemical reaction, not a holistic biological transition.

This startling example of medical technology offering bioengineered options may excite overzealous clinicians like Norman Spack – who has more than once described himself as “salivating” when he first heard about puberty blockers – but it is not good for humanity.

Facilitating meetings with detransitioners who never went through puberty has given me deep insight into the risks associated with these radical interventions. Through the Beyond Trans programme, I often meet female detransitioners who skipped puberty and are now fearful of reverting to their biological sex. Those who have undergone a hysterectomy or a bilateral orchiectomy are particularly fearful of reverting, as this would entail reintroducing a sex hormone into a body that never experienced natural puberty and no longer contains key reproductive organs.

These are experimental interventions, and we have yet to see the long-term outcomes for detransitioners who are now facing puberty in adulthood. Will the body fully “know” what to do with oestrogen or testosterone in this context - without reproductive organs and without the developmental groundwork laid during adolescence? We still lack long-term data. These detransitioners are understandably wary of further experimentation on their bodies and often feel forced to continue presenting as trans – despite deep regret – because they believe they have passed the point of no return.

• Article 6(2) mandates the protection of "the survival and development of the child." Puberty blockers disrupt essential developmental processes crucial for maturation into adulthood.

• Article 19(1) obliges states to shield children from harmful practices such as “injury or abuse" Medical transition is associated with significant risk of harm to the body, including reduced bone density, potential adverse impacts on brain development, and compromised fertility.

• Article 24(1) affirms the child's right to "the highest attainable standard of health." Medical transition violates this principle by transforming previously healthy children into lifelong medical patients.

The MoU advocates for non-medicalised support that upholds the UNCRC's fundamental commitment to protecting children's health, well-being, and development.

We’re delighted that all the leading organisations who are informed about the harms of medical transition recognise the vital role that puberty plays in adolescent development and have already signed the MoU. Groups such as Sex Matters, Can-SG, Transgender Trend, Our Duty, Thoughtful Therapists, Critical Therapy Antidote, LGB Alliance, and many others have all declared their support. Key figures in the field have signed the Statement of Concern, including Prof David Bell, Dr Az Hakeem, Marcus and Sue Evans, Dr Stephen Levine, Sasha Ayad, Dr Louise Irvine, Dr Stella Kingett, Dr Jillian Spencer, James Caspian, Bob Withers, James Esses, and Prof Dianna Kenny.

We invite all organizations to display the MoU compliance badge to publicly demonstrate their commitment to protecting children and adolescence. Organizations wishing to feature their logo on the MoU website can email info@genspect.org for consideration.

Throughout this process, we have become aware of certain groups and organisations within our movement who believe that further studies are needed before taking a firm stance. But having spent years examining the evidence, we do not believe this is a tenable or ethically defensible position.

Puberty is the essential bridge between childhood and adulthood. We must protect every adolescent’s right to cross it, so they have the best possible chance at a healthy and free future.

Items From America's Future

There are times when it seems like there are only dark clouds ahead.  It’s hard to imagine the sun shining through again. This last week was like that, as we sought solace in the wake of a campaign of terror that killed dozens around the world.

Two students were shot to death at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, for as of yet unknown causes, and their killer is still on the loose as of publication. At Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, fifteen people were slaughtered by a demonically deranged father and son duo determined to salve Muslim grievances by killing Jews. Another terror attack in Syria took the lives of three brave Americans, two soldiers and a translator. We owe thanks to God and the good people at the FBI, who reportedly thwarted another terror plot targeting Californians.

It’s in these times of crisis and upheaval that men and women rise to face the challenges of their families, communities, and nations. History shows us great leaders and how their calm, clarity, and decisiveness inspire and motivate their nations. Winston Churchill, for instance, regularly addressed the British people during the hardest days of WWII, like the massive effort to evacuate troops from Dunkirk, and the eight-month-long bombing of London, known as the Blitz.

Recent news reports out of Australia, however, show us counterexamples of men and women incapable of guiding their nations through the storm. While many police stepped up to protect the innocents under fire at Bondi Beach, some indeed were wounded by the gunmen, others hid even as children were gunned down. The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, courted favors from the global left by recognizing a Palestinian state, thereby rewarding a terror enclave that inspired the two monsters who murdered his constituents.

The point is this: sometimes the men and women elected to exercise authority on our behalf prove their worthiness to lead. And sometimes they simply show they are cowards. As Americans, it’s up to us to step forward and take responsibility to lead. That means each and every American, for we were born for times like this. Leadership is our legacy, handed down to us by generations of fearless patriots who answered the call for courage and led from the front. And we, too, are going to answer the bell.

As Christmas approaches, we find warmth in the closeness of our family, friends, and neighbors. That’s our most intimate community. But step back and look closely to consider what each of them, and all of us together represent: a people that has waged wars to fight tyranny at home and abroad. We’ll win because America is made of, by, and for winners. Those who do harm to us and our friends abroad are indeed dark clouds, but passing, bad weather, but temporary. What remains fixed is our righteous faith in God, our communities, our country, and the justness of our cause. Stand tall, be the leader America needs you to be.

The Sacred Alliance Between Citizens & Voting Rights

America is a Constitutional Republic, and as such, the government operates “from the consent of the governed.” The phrase originates directly from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) are two such rules. Both establish that voter registration processes, voter lists, and oversight are properly managed. And if there is noncompliance, states can be held to account, as is now underway with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA). The CRA gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to demand the production, inspection, and analysis of statewide voter registration lists.

On December 12, 2025, the Division filed suits against four states that have failed to comply with the law. The four are now part of a total of 18 states against which the DOJ has filed suits related to voter rolls and election integrity.

“States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in a press release. “At this Department of Justice, we will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws. If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”

It is no secret that the crisis at the border under the Biden administration exacerbated voter fraud as millions of illegal aliens invaded the country and have been found to have registered to vote and have voted. And with over 78% of U.S. voters reporting that it is likely or very likely that non-citizens are registered to vote in their state, voter rolls must be checked and corrected, because every vote cast by an illegal alien disenfranchises an American citizen’s vote.

The Declaration of Independence established the first rule of our system of government as a Constitutional Republic: that We The People hold the power, and that if the government fails, it is our right as citizens to decide what comes next – not illegal aliens and not rogue state election officials.

Editor’s Note: America’s Future state-by-state Election Information Resources is the starting point for learning more about your state’s election process and registration records, contacting your state election officials, and conducting investigations into your state or county voter rolls.

America’s Future files SCOTUS brief Defending

Religious Freedom and Biblical Morality

On Wednesday, December 17, 2025, America’s Future filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in support of the petitioner, St. Mary Catholic Parsh (St. Mary), in St. Mary Catholic Parish et al. v Lisa Roy, as Director of Colorado Department of Early Childhood, Dkt. No. 25-581. This litigation challenges certain regulations governed by Colorado’s “Universal Preschool Program (UPK)” which, in general, “provides at least 15 hours of free preschool per week for each eligible child in the state.”

The petitioner is an operator of a Catholic preschool program with a school policy requiring parents to sign a pre-enrollment agreement endorsing Catholic teachings that marriage is limited to monogamous heterosexual relationships and that there are only two sexes, male and female. As such, the petitioner is asking the SCOTUS to strike down or redline the state law due to its discriminatory practice of limiting funding to organizations that embrace homosexuality and the transgender agendas of recent years.  The public docket is located here.

St. Mary has presented three legal questions to the SCOTUS in their petition, paraphrased as follows,

1. Whether proving a lack of general applicability for funding requires unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct.
2. Whether the recent holding Carson v. Makin displaces the holding in Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions?
3. Whether Employment Division v. Smith must be overruled?

The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Colorado’s decision to exclude Catholic preschools from participating in the UPK. Applying Employment Division v. Smith (1990), it held that Colorado’s secular exemptions did not undermine general applicability of its UPK. The Tenth Circuit also sidestepped Carson v. Makin (2022), concluding that its rule was inapplicable because Colorado’s exclusion was not “on the explicit basis” of religion.

Regarding the erroneous ruling from the Tenth Circuit ruling, our brief explains, 

The courts below rely on Employment Division v. Smith, arguing that the Colorado law applies a generally applicable rule with only incidental adverse effects on some schools, parents, and children…However, by excluding applicants who refuse to embrace the state’s view of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” Colorado is discriminating based on religious doctrine, which also interferes with the free exercise thereof. Additionally, Under the establishment clause, no such state preferences of one religion over another are permissible.

We agree with St. Mary that the Tenth Circuit’s ruling cannot survive constitutional scrutiny under the Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment.  Our brief provides significant insight into why government funding for preschool programs must not be denied to applicants simply because they embrace Biblical morality.

Upon review of SCOTUS precedential decisions involving violations of religious freedom under the First Amendment, a well-reasoned roadmap to the proper adjudication of this case rests on whether unlawful hostility towards Christianity and America’s Founding era is prohibited in our nation, as it very well should be. Colorado’s law plainly contravenes and discriminates against our God-given rights as enshrined by our founding texts and should be stricken as constitutionally invalid. 

In both the text of the law and how it was implemented, Colorado discriminated against Biblical Christianity in three ways. First, the basic qualifications excluded applicants embracing traditional Biblical morality. Second, while exemptions were allowed to opponents of Biblical morality, its exemption policy prevented those embracing traditional Biblical Christianity from receiving one. And third, making the State’s discriminatory purposes even more clear, preferences could be granted to those opposing, but not those supporting, traditional Biblical Christianity.

For the foregoing reasons and as our brief further explains, the St. Mary petition should be granted and the lower court judgments should be reversed.

Editor’s Note: To read more details about this filing, along with other briefs filed by America’s Future, please visit our Law & Policy page.

Off The Press  @OffThePress1            

An article by Kristen Taketa posted to the San Diego Union-Tribune on Dec 8 2025

“An uproar over the rental comes just as the district ponders stricter oversight for its schools’ foundations, which are allowed to rent out school facilities and pocket the revenue."

San Dieguito students and administrators are in an uproar after Canyon Crest Academy’s high school foundation rented out its school gym as a commercial filming location for an adult game show last weekend that featured racist, profane, sexually suggestive, religiously offensive and other inappropriate content.

The outrage comes just as the school district ponders stricter oversight for the four foundations that raise money for its four high schools, and that are allowed to rent out school facilities and pocket the revenue. Those nonprofits, run by their own staff and volunteers, have operated for years with no formal district oversight or requirements.

The show was produced by an online content company called PaymoneyWubby and by Fansly, a subscription-based social media platform for adult content, according to social media posts about the event.

One such post made during the shoot shows the Canyon Crest Academy logo on a chair in the school’s weight room, and the streamed video shows the school’s raven mascot on a wall in the back of the gym.

The premise of the show, called “24-Hour Tag,” was that four contestants had to “survive” for 24 hours in the school gym and endure “punishments” if caught in games of tag. The show was broadcast live on the streaming platform Twitch.

At various points, the male contestants used profanity, wore sashes with phrases including “botched penis” and “pedophile,” licked chocolate fondue off of women’s feet and enacted a mocking parody of the crucifixion of Jesus.

They also gave a PowerPoint presentation with slides showing racist statements, such as: “What does a White man in America face today? Too much Spanish, Black history month (as a whole), Trader Joe’s, China.”

Throughout the show, the activities were assisted by scantily clad women.

The company behind the event defended itself in response to questions from The San Diego Union-Tribune.

“We understand that the production company filmed a game show with highly inappropriate content that appears to have violated the terms of the agreement between (the foundation) and the production company, as well as the district’s community standards and policies,” the district said.

“While school sites are intended to be a civic center available for public use, such use is not without limits, and our top priority is always the safety and support of our students.”

The district added that it is considering pursuing legal action against “the parties involved to hold them accountable for the egregious conduct on our school campus.”

The Canyon Crest Academy Foundation confirmed that it approved the facility rental with an outside production company on Oct. 9.

The nonprofit said the company did not disclose specifics about the show or any inappropriate or concerning content, although it did say the content would be PG-13. The foundation said the production was “in clear violation” of the foundation’s facilities use license agreement.

The foundation did not respond to questions about the name of the company to which it rented the gym but said it was based in New Hampshire. The organization did not provide a copy of the contract, and it was not immediately clear how much was paid for the rental.

Executive director Regina Twomey said the foundation sincerely apologizes to the school community and said it “ultimately failed to ensure proper oversight.”

“We are fully committed to implementing stronger internal protocols, enhanced review processes and additional safeguards to ensure that nothing like this happens again,” Twomey said. The foundation is working with legal counsel to review what happened and mull potential action regarding the production company.

Canyon Crest Academy’s facility use terms say it’s up to the school custodian to ensure that outside parties using the school facilities follow district rules, and it’s up to the custodian to report rule violations to the superintendent.

Those terms ban profane language, tobacco, intoxicants, narcotics, fighting, gambling, quarreling and the distribution or posting of materials that promote any crime or activity prohibited by law.

But the terms do not otherwise outline rules about appropriateness of programming content.

Meanwhile, the school district’s facility policy says facilities shall be made available as a civic center for use by citizens and community groups, including for public agency meetings, religious services, recreational activities like sports, disaster shelters or ceremonies held by veterans’ groups.

The district’s rules say school facilities cannot be used for any crimes or acts prohibited by law, drug activities or “any use which is inconsistent with the use of school facilities for school purposes or which interferes with the regular conduct of school or school work.”

According to the district’s posted facility fee schedule, renting a school gymnasium costs $3,000 a day for commercial use.

The filming incident comes as the San Dieguito school board is now considering a memorandum of understanding that would enforce transparency and operations requirements for foundations.

The proposal follows an external audit that found weak controls and financial discrepancies and inaccuracies in the foundations’ operations. The audit was prompted by two former Canyon Crest Academy students who had investigated their school foundation’s financial practices.

Our schools are supposed to protect children, not rent themselves out to the highest bidder for creating explicit content..

Our Equal Protection Project has challenged over 125 institutions regarding over 600 discriminatory programs and scholarships. You may recall that, based on our civil rights complaints in July 2025, the U.S. Department of Education opened investigations into DACA/”Undocumented” Only programs at five universities, leading to an avalanche of media coverage.

We recently discovered similar systematic discrimination against American-born students through DACA/”Undocumented” programs in three major university systems in California involving 138 colleges and universities.

On December 1, 2025, we filed a Civil Rights Complaint (Exhibits here) with the Civil Right Division of the U.S. Department of Justice:

We write to request that the Department of Justice open a formal investigation into the University of California, California State University, and California Community College systems, and one hundred and thirty-eight (138) participating California public colleges and universities. These institutions operate, sponsor, and promote DACA/“Undocumented” programs that unlawfully discriminate against American-born students in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The programs are documented in Exhibits 1-3 to this Complaint and confer benefits on DACA/“Undocumented” students, and deny those benefits equally to American-born students, ranging from exclusive access to campus facilities and resources to dedicated funding, staff, counseling, advocacy, and other forms of support. These 138 institutions and programs are organized in the attached Exhibits into three categories: (1) Ten (10) University of California system schools (Exhibit 1); (2) Twenty-one (21) California State University system schools (Exhibit 2); and (3) One hundred and seven (107) California Community College system schools (the systems and schools, collectively, are referred to herein as the “California Colleges”).¹

The programs subject to this Complaint operating at the California Colleges are available only to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients² and “undocumented” non-citizens (sometimes referred to as “Dreamers”), or provide preference to such students.³

Because DACA only applies to persons born outside the United States subject to certain other conditions, restricting programs and benefits to DACA recipients excludes American-born students. Similarly, “undocumented” status only applies to students born outside the United States and excludes American-born students. The DACA/“Undocumented” programs operating at the California Colleges thus systemically discriminate against American-born students on the basis of national origin.⁴

The DACA/“Undocumented” programs operating at the California Colleges violate federal law in two ways.

First, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of national origin in any “program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.5 42 U.S.C. §2000d. These programs employed by the California Colleges qualify as a program or activity falling under Title VI. The three institutional systems comprising the California Colleges also receive federal funding administered by the Department of Justice, further underscoring the need for action by your office.⁶

Second, discriminating against American-born students based upon their national origin also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, unless it satisfies strict constitutional scrutiny. The DACA/“Undocumented” programs at the California Colleges cannot meet this heavy burden….

As documented in the Exhibits, some programs are expressly limited to DACA/“Undocumented” students, while all the identified programs also “signal” such exclusion or preference for such students through program titling and promotion. No American-born student would be likely to seek assistance through or apply to a program titled and promoted as being for DACA/“Undocumented” students….

When the California Colleges promote the identified programs as being for DACA/“Undocumented” students, an ordinary student reasonably would assume that American-born students need not apply. That deterrent effect is itself unlawful discrimination.

1 We take no position on and do not in this Complaint challenge whether DACA/”Undocumented” students can participate in the programs. We only challenge the discrimination against American-born students.

3 While most programs are designated for DACA/“Undocumented” students, certain programs provide that DACA/“Undocumented” are automatically eligible while American-born students have to show an additional factor to qualify, such as being from a mixed status family or an “ally.” This differing standard also constitutes discrimination against American-born students.

We requested the opening of a formal investigation and, if appropriate, further legal action by DOJ.

Fox News covered the filing:

Examples in the complaint include UC Berkeley’s Undocumented Student Program, which the university says has been in place since 2012 and “serves nearly 500 students annually” by providing “counseling, financial support, mental health support, legal support, and professional development opportunities” to undocumented students.

The EPP letter urges the DOJ to “immediately” open a formal investigation into what it calls “systemic discrimination against American-born students” at California’s public colleges and universities, and to take legal action to secure “appropriate remedial relief” if violations are found.

“The largest California state higher education systems have decided that American-born students are not worthy of equal treatment on par with DACA and ‘undocumented’ students,” EPP President and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “This systemic discrimination cries out for action by the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce the civil rights laws and constitutional guarantee of equal protection.”

EPP is a nonprofit organization that “seeks to ensure equal protection under the law by opposing unlawful discrimination,” Jacobson said. The group says it has challenged more than 600 programs and scholarships it considers discriminatory at over 125 colleges and universities nationwide.

“This is state-sponsored discrimination, so it cannot be fixed at the state level,” Jacobson continued. “If the federal government doesn’t act, the discrimination against American-born students throughout California higher education will continue unabated.” …

Jacobson emphasized that the complaint does not challenge the inclusion of “Dreamers” or “undocumented” students in these programs, but instead challenges the exclusion of American-born students, arguing the programs should be equally available to them.

“As a California native with degrees from a community college and from UC Berkeley, I am appalled at the discrimination against American-born students,” said Timothy R. Snowball, EPP senior attorney, in a statement to Fox News Digital. “If our own institutions of higher education discriminate against American-born students, how can we trust those institutions to educate the next generation of leaders?”

“I was a high school dropout, and know exactly what it is like to need extra support in becoming a successful college student,” he continued. “Tutoring programs, career counseling, and financial aid are an important part of this process. But such benefits should never be withheld from American-born students in favor of DACA or ‘undocumented’ students.”

“I take civic pride in filing this complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice against both my community college alma mater, Grossmont College, and my university alma mater, UC Berkeley,” Snowball added. “I am upholding the principles of equality and equal protection those institutions once espoused but now betray.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges systems for comment but did not immediately receive responses.

On CSU’s website, it says it supports undocumented students by providing “numerous resources, from grants, loans and scholarships to legal and campus support services, including dedicated Dream Centers with full-time staff.”

“We seek support for our Dreamers and DACA recipients—and those across the country—to honor their humanity, to remove inequitable and unfair barriers that stand between them and the fulfillment of their personal and professional dreams,” CSU Chancellor Mildred García said in a 2024 statement defending these programs. “That’s what the CSU stands for—that’s what we do—and at a scale greater than any other university system in the world.”

The Equal Protection Project filed a similar complaint in May against the University of Nebraska Omaha’s Dreamer’s Pathway Scholarship Program, alleging it also violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Department of Education on Tuesday announced that it had reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit by ending President Joe Biden's student loan plans.

Biden's Education Department enacted the Saving on Valuable Education (SAVE) in the wake of a Supreme Court decision ruling that he could not unilaterally cancel student debt without an act of Congress. Republican-led states had challenged the backup plan, alleging it was illegal on its own.

“For four years, the Biden Administration sought to unlawfully shift student loan debt onto American taxpayers, many of whom either never took out a loan to finance their postsecondary education or never even went to college themselves, simply for a political win to prop up a failing Administration,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said, according to The Hill.

The settlement would affect as many as 7 million borrowers.

attempts to return education to individual states while also dividing federal responsibilities between the departments of State, Labor, Interior and Health and Human Services

Agroup of Senate Democrats urged Education Secretary Linda McMahon on Wednesday to reconsider her attempts to dismantle the Department of Education by allocating responsibilities from the department to four other federal departments.

The plan, which was unveiled last month, attempts to return education to individual states while also dividing some federal responsibilities between the departments of State, Labor, Interior and Health and Human Services.

The senators accused the secretary of making things harder for states, school districts and other educational institutions nationwide that would hurt American families.

“Your brazen attempt to dismantle the Department by transferring to other federal agencies complex and foundational responsibilities that Congress specifically charged to the Department — including more than half of all federal funds for elementary and secondary education programs and billions in higher education funding — will undermine public education,” the letter read.

“We urge you to immediately reverse course and to focus your time and attention on actions that actually help states, school districts and educational institutions improve educational outcomes and support for students,” the senators added.

The letter was led by Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, according to The Hill. 

Become a Part of the Frontlines...

The Santa Clara chapter of Moms for Liberty would like to invite anyone interested in working as the group's vice-chair to give the idea serious consideration. It is both a rewarding and important task

Qualifications for the role include:

* Dedication to the idea of fighting for the survival of America by unifying, educating and empowering parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.

* The ability to act fearlessly as a joyful warrior, someone who is willing to stand on solid principles and fight for what is right, especially when faced with a hostile environment.

Interested in learning more? Please reach out to our chapter's membership coordinator Kingslee.

Want to See the Change? Be the Change...

Organizations whose efforts we support...

Think on this...

Moms for Liberty Santa Clara County operates as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization.

The organization's primary mission is to organize, educate and empower parents
to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.

Visit us at https://momsforlibertysantaclara.com
Email us at MomsForLibertySCC@gmail.com

Want to read past newsletters? Click Here
Wish to unsubscribe from this newsletter? Click Here

Our physical mailing address: 1050 Kiely Blvd.  # 2453  Santa Clara, CA  95055