Court Dismisses Lawsuit from “Jewish, Zionist” Teachers and Parents Concerning Alleged Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Zionist Curriculum in Schools

On May 12, 2022, the Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles, an unincorporated association of Jewish and Zionist educators and parents in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), filed a lawsuit against the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium regarding the ethnic studies curriculum being proposed. In their complaint, the plaintiffs presented an array of allegations against the curriculum that they claimed could harm their community, though the court noted the complaint was convoluted and inconsistent. The plaintiffs argued that the curriculum promoted anti-Zionism and discriminate against Jewish beliefs, notably claiming it depicted the establishment of Israel as founded on ethnic cleansing and genocide. They contended that this material constituted antisemitism, which they claimed violated their rights.

The court meticulously addressed the plaintiffs’ claims but found numerous shortcomings in their arguments. One major concern the court raised was the potential infringement on First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs sought to restrict the petitioning and expression rights of the non-District defendants, including the teachers and organizations advocating for the curriculum, by imposing judicial restrictions on what could be taught in educational settings. The court emphasized that the non-District defendants had the right to advocate, express their views, and petition for educational changes, which is protected under the First Amendment. It cautioned against the lawsuit’s implications, which could have a chilling effect on free speech, hindering discussions on important educational topics.

Another point of concern for the court was plaintiffs’ requests to enjoin LAUSD teachers from using the challenged curriculum in their classrooms. This raised significant First Amendment issues related to academic freedom. The court noted that while teachers’ speech may be regulated by their employers, imposing legal restrictions from a private group on educational content could dangerously restrict the broader discourse necessary for education. Citing past cases, the court argued that lawsuits challenging school curricula could deter districts from using diverse materials for fear of repercussions, ultimately stifling both students’ and teachers’ access to vital ideas and discussions.

Furthermore, the court evaluated the plaintiffs’ claims about the autonomy of non-District defendants in shaping the ethnic studies curriculum. It found little evidence supporting the notion that these defendants had unlawfully stepped into a role controlling curriculum development, contradicting the plaintiffs’ assertions. The LAUSD maintained authority over the curriculum, and the Consortium was advisory, not controlling, in nature. The court ruled that simply advocating for a curriculum did not equate to state action, thereby dismissing claims that the non-District defendants were acting on behalf of the state.

Additionally, the court addressed the plaintiffs’ arguments under the Free Exercise Clause. They claimed the curriculum created a substantial burden on their religious exercise by creating an environment opposed to their beliefs. However, the court found that mere offense from exposure to material contrary to one’s beliefs does not constitute a legal burden on religious practice. There were no claims indicating that the plaintiffs were prevented from practicing their faith or teaching their beliefs to their children, and the court noted that prior legal decisions reinforced this position.

In summary, the court’s ruling emphasized protections surrounding freedom of expression and academic freedom in educational contexts, asserting these principles against attempts to censor or regulate curricula based on alleged offense. It underscored the necessity of maintaining a forum for diverse thoughts and discussions, asserting that lawsuits based on discomfort rather than substantive legal violations could hinder educational enrichment. The plaintiffs’ inability to provide clear, actionable claims demonstrated the complexity of balancing educational content and community sensitivities in a legally defensible manner. The court’s thorough examination showcased the challenges in navigating First Amendment rights in educational policy debates.