Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

DEI

CA school taught 5th graders gender identity, had them teach it to kindergartners

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

Plaintiffs “were especially bothered that they had to push the idea that individuals can select their own gender to a kindergartener, knowing this kindergarten buddy looks up to them as role models and trusts their opinions.”

A California school district allegedly had a teacher teach a lesson and read a gender identity book to fifth graders, then have those fifth graders watch a video version of the book with their kindergarten mentees and teach them the lesson they just learned.

Outraged Encinitas parents are now suing the school district and demanding a notification and opt-out program for all objectionable content; currently, content notifications and opt-outs are only available for the health unit.

The fifth grade students’ parents had first asked to review a health unit with lessons on “puberty, health reproduction, media influences on health habits and body image, hygiene, boundaries and bullying and diseases and their transmission, including information about HIV/AIDS.”

After finding the unit’s  “instruction on gender identity and transgenderism” was “affront to their religious beliefs,” the parents tried to opt out of just the gender section, but were told they would have to opt out of the entire unit, which they did.

But this opt out did not cover the school’s buddy program that pairs older students with the same younger students every week for one class.

The lawsuit says “with the buddy relationships in place and well established, [school district staff] planned a unique event for May 1, 2024. During this “buddy” program, the District would use fifth graders to help kindergarteners learn about gender identity.”

The school district used My Shadow is Pink, a picture book for young children in which a boy “wonders about his gender and how he believes it differentiates from his father’s gender” and says he “loves wearing dresses and dancing around.” The boy wears a dress to school, making the father “anxious and stressed” until he too wears a dress after his son has a difficult day. The father then tells his child, “pick up that dress! Your shadow is pink. I see now it’s true. It’s not just a shadow, it’s your inner-most you.”

Before the buddy session, one staff member said to another, “We might just inspire some sweet things to fly toward their shadow tomorrow,” suggesting the lesson had a desired outcome, according to the lawsuit.

At the start of the session one teacher allegedly read the book to the fifth grade class, which students found unusual because “It was rare for [him] to read any book to them, and he had never read a book to them for the ‘buddy’ program.”

Immediately after, the fifth graders each sat next to their kindergarten mentees, and shown a read-along video version of the book, leading one 5th grade plaintiff to allegedly say “[he] wanted to cover his buddy’s eyes and ears to protect him.”

Next, 5th graders were allegedly told to have their buddies choose a color representing their buddies’ gender, and draw their buddies’ outlines in chalk in that color to communicate “gender was determined by an internal feeling.”

Both plaintiffs “were especially bothered that they had to push the idea that individuals can select their own gender to a kindergartener, knowing this kindergarten buddy looks up to them as role models and trusts their opinions.”

“The blatant promotion of gender identity in the My Shadow is Pink book is self-evident and obvious,” says the lawsuit. “The book is marketed as “a rhyming story that touches on the subjects of gender identity, equality, and diversity.”

A petition to require parental notification for controversial curriculum items at Encinitas Union School District, but the school did not respond to the petition or its concerns, aside from sending a template letter describing the district’s opt-out policy.

The lawsuit is claiming the students’ First Amendment  rights were violated by compelling them to speak messages to kindergarteners that violate their religious beliefs and consciences, and that the school districts’ policy of allowing opt-outs only in some parts of schooling but not in others is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Among other demands, the plaintiffs seek opt out and parental notification policies for “curriculum, activities, or any other instruction related to gender identity or other LGBTQ topics.”

“You have the absolute right to opt your child out of any program out there,” said Lance Christensen, Vice President of the California Policy Center, to The Center Square. Last month, the CPC issued an “opt-out toolkit” explaining to parents how they can protect and expand opt-out policies.

“These parents have the right to not have their children subjected to a radical ideology,” continued Christensen. “We’re talking about elementary school kids. What’s wrong with these teachers, and these schools?”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Canadian gov’t spending on DEI programs exceeds $1 billion since 2016

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Some departments failed to provide clear descriptions of how the taxpayer funds were used. For example, Prairies Economic Development Canada spent $190.1 million on projects related to diversity, equity and inclusion ventures but could not provide details.

Federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs have cost Canadian taxpayers more than $1 billion since 2016.

According to information published September 18 by Blacklock’s Reporter, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) government grants have totaled $1.049 billion since 2016, including grants for “cultural vegetables.”

A $25 million grant, one of the largest individual grants, was given to the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to “strengthen Canada’s entrepreneurship ecosystem to be more accessible to LGBTQ small businesses.”

The government payouts were distributed among 29 departments, ranging from military to agricultural projects.

The Department of Agriculture spent $90,649 for “harvesting, processing and storage of cultural vegetables to strengthen food security in equity-deserving Black communities” in Ontario.

Some departments failed to provide clear descriptions of how the taxpayer funds were used. For example, Prairies Economic Development Canada spent $190.1 million on projects related to diversity, equity and inclusion ventures but could not provide details.

“PrairiesCan conducted a search in our grants and contributions management system using the keywords ‘equity,’ ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion,’” the Inquiry said. “Certain projects were included where diversity, equity and inclusion were referenced but may not be the main focus of the project.”

DEI projects are presented as efforts by organizations to promote fair treatment, representation, and access to opportunities for people from varied backgrounds. However, the projects are often little more than LGBT propaganda campaigns funded by the Liberal government.

As LifeSiteNews reported, the University of British Columbia Vancouver campus posted an opening for a research chair position that essentially barred non-homosexual white men from applying for the job.

Canadians have repeatedly appealed to Liberals to end pro-LGBT DEI mandates, particularly within the education system.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, in June 2024, 40 Canadian university professors appealed to the Liberal government to abandon DEI initiatives in universities, arguing they are both ineffective and harmful to Canadians.

Continue Reading

Business

Cracker Barrel and the Power of Conservative Boycotts

Published on

Christopher F. Rufo Christopher F. Rufo

The uproar over the restaurant chain’s rebrand might appear trivial, but it carries a deeper significance.

Last week, another viral culture war story captured the headlines. The old-timey restaurant chain Cracker Barrel had rebranded, removing the old man and the barrel from its logo, and replacing it with a simple, modernistic, typography-only design.

At first, I dismissed the story as trivial. I have never set foot in a Cracker Barrel and, as such, have little stake in what is emblazoned above its doorways. But after speaking with conservative activist Robby Starbuck, I learned there was something beyond the logo that deserved our attention. According to Starbuck, Cracker Barrel, whose customer base is heavily white, conservative, and rural, had spent the last few years adopting all the fashionable left-wing corporate policies: DEI, Pride, pronouns, race politics, and the rest.

The logo change might have caught the public’s initial attention, but the underlying political story had real stakes. If companies that depend on conservatives adopt radical left-wing policies, they must face the consequences.

And, thanks to the work of Starbuck and others, the social media uproar seems to have made a difference. As the story circulated through the media, the company’s stock price plummeted by as much as 17 percent. Cracker Barrel has quickly walked back its changes.

All this is salutary. Beginning with the revolt against Bud Light, the Right learned how to flex its muscles in the marketplace. Rather than defer to corporations as they did in the past, conservatives have realized that corporations have a culture and must be constantly reminded that, if they deviate from core American values, the consequences will be felt in their bottom line. Starbuck has had enormous success on this point, leading boycott campaigns that have changed policies at Harley-DavidsonTractor Supply, John Deere, and other major brands.

A number of lessons can be drawn from this experience. First, conservatives can win these culture fights. Second, corporations follow the narrative in the media. Third, behavior changes through reward and punishment.

This last point is especially important. Some might dismiss the Cracker Barrel campaign as minor, or even embarrassing, given that the company is a decidedly down-class brand. But there is enormous value in making an example of the company and cementing a fear that conservatives can spontaneously lash out at any institution that crosses the line. Today, it’s Cracker Barrel; tomorrow it might be Pepsi, Target, or Procter & Gamble. As we have seen in recent years, corporate CEOs are highly sensitive to shifts in public opinion—and marginal changes in revenues—and will drop left-wing policies as soon as they become a liability.

The question is how to gain leverage. We are all tempted to be polite in public. But the fight over corporate culture can’t be won without securing real, tangible victories—which means real, tangible losses for institutions on the other side. Even if we don’t care about Cracker Barrel in particular, we should all care about the ideological capture of American institutions and use whatever power we have to reverse it.

And for that to occur, the Barrel must be broken.

Subscribe to Christopher F. Rufo.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X