“California’s schools are sending a clear message to parents: you don’t have the right to know if your child is sharing a sleeping space with an adult or another student of the opposite sex,” said Julie Hamill, President of the California Justice Center.
Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) finds itself in the crosshairs of a federal civil rights lawsuit. It joins two other public school districts and the California Department of Education in allegedly violating Title IX protections and forcing students to share intimate facilities on the basis of “gender identity” rather than biological sex.
The case against CUSD concerns an upcoming overnight trip to the Pali Institute in the San Bernardino Mountains. Under current plans, fifth grade students would have to share sleeping quarters with classmates—and, presumably, faculty members or adult chaperones—based solely on how others choose to identify. Parents would not be notified if their child was forced to room with members of the opposite sex, and if they were to find out, they would also be barred from requesting alternative arrangements.
The complaint was filed by the California Justice Center and the Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies. Los Angeles Unified School District and San Francisco Unified School District are also cited.
“Schools should not require a fifth-grade girl to sacrifice her dignity and privacy to accommodate the gender identity preference of another student as a condition of participating in a school activity. To do so would simply erase ‘sex’ from Title IX,” said Bob Eitel, President of the Defense of Freedom Institute. “The situation in Capistrano USD should not be considered in isolation. It illustrates how these laws and policies are playing out in California and other states across the country.”
These parents’ concerns are not purely hypothetical. This very scenario played out at Pali Institute in 2022 when 10 and 11 year-old girls from Weaver Elementary School in Los Alamitos apparently were made to sleep in cabins with male counselors using “they/them” pronouns. To date, the school claims it is “unable” to confirm how, if, or why this took place; but the camp’s assistant director has confirmed it places staff “in cabins they identify with,” as per California law.
“No parent should feel the way I feel after knowing what could have happened to my daughter,” said parent Suzy Johnson. “It’s awful that children had to even experience this in fifth-grade camp. If I was aware of it… I would have kept my children home.”
CUSD’s website does acknowledge that Title IX “was passed in 1972 to ensure that male and female students and employees in educational settings are treated equally and fairly. It protects against discrimination based on sex (including sexual harassment).” Efforts have been made for years to expand Title IX to cover gender identity, including last year’s attempt by the Biden-era U.S. Department of Education to create new provisions for the law. That ploy was blocked days later by a federal judge who accused the Department of Education of “[seeking] to derail deeply rooted law.”
“The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute,” stated Chief Judge Danny Reeves in June 2024.
Given this precedent, it’s reasonable to assume that any lawyers defending the policies of the CDE, CUSD, SFUSD, and LAUSD would have an uphill battle in arguing that these controversial gender-affirming policies do not in fact violate the “plain language” or Title IX.
“California’s schools are sending a clear message to parents: you don’t have the right to know if your child is sharing a sleeping space with an adult or another student of the opposite sex,” said Julie Hamill, President of the California Justice Center. “Our public schools have a duty to uphold Title IX and protect children’s safety and privacy. We are fighting to restore those protections.”
We reached out to the Board of Trustees via an independent reporter to clarify why the district would support or allow such arrangements—and whether any of the Trustees would like to provide their own statement on the matter. At the time of publication, we have not received a response.
