TEMECULA, Calif. — A Riverside County judge ruled a parental notification policy and critical race theory ban at Temecula Valley Unified School District can remain in place while the case plays out in courts.

The case is part of a larger lawsuit between a group of teachers, students and parents suing members of the school district board and the district over the constitutionality of two policies implemented. 

The first policy introduced in December 2022 was the Critical Race Theory Resolution looking to ban any teachings from critical race theory, which, according to the Legal Defense Fund is a legal framework taught at the university level that denotes systemic racism is part of American society. This policy was implemented despite CRT never being taught in the district previously. 

The second policy, more commonly known as “parental notification,” requires teachers to notify parents if their student asks to use pronouns different from the ones assigned at birth. 

While earlier in February, the same judge ruled this case was allowed to move forward, declining this request for a preliminary injunction felt like a win for those in favor of the policies and a setback for those against them. 

Dan Molina is one parent who was happy with the ruling. A father to three students in the district, he began attending school board meetings in support of the policies and has been following the case ever since. 

“I wasn’t really surprised. I think that the justice system saw and said, ‘Hey, there’s nothing weird or funny here,’ but I know the trial has to continue and we’ll see how things go from here. But I think this is a huge win for parents,” Molina said. 

While it brought concern for Josh Schierling, who is also a dad of three students at the school district. 

“Some teacher is going to be caught in the crosshairs. And given the choice of not following the policy, following the policy, or more dangerously ignoring the child, causing the kid to be feeling alone, isolated,” Schierling said. 

Although he knows this is not the end. 

“I do not think that this is dead. I think when we get to the California court system or even to the Supreme Court, that good human decency will prevail,” Schierling said. 

It’s a hope that Katrina Miles, a teacher at the school district and plaintiff in the lawsuit, also carries. 

“I am still hopeful because I know that there are similar cases going on around the state and the rules have been different. And so, yes, I remain hopeful,” Miles said. 

She said that as an African American teacher, the CRT resolution has changed the way she teaches as she has focused her reading classes toward books on diverse characters. 

“Before I knew of anything called CRT, before there was any discussion of what those theories and ideas were, I’ve always told my story. I’ve always shared my background and the stories of my people and my heritage,” Miles said. 

For the CRT resolution, the lawsuit argues it is vague and censors teachers, infringing on a student’s fundamental right to an education. 

In his ruling Friday, Judge Eric Keen wrote, “It seems clear to the court that a person of ordinary intelligence would have a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, as what is prohibited is set out specifically in the resolution.”

Miles said there are still a lot of voices of teachers and students that need to be heard before the final decision.

“However, this thing plays out. How can we still do better in terms of our growing diverse community and make sure that the African American story continues to be a part of that? The parts that we can celebrate, as well as the parts that we have to mourn over,” Miles said. 

Molina, who is in favor of the CRT resolution, said he does not believe the guidance limits teaching about history. 

“I think that a lot of the polarization that happened over the CRT and the parental rights was really rooted in people interpreting the policy and then telling everybody that’s what it was ... The first part of the resolution was them defining racism and then condemning it,” Molina said. 

While Schierling said not teaching CRT is a disservice to understanding how race influences society today, adding it prevents future generations from making the same mistakes as the past. 

“Why are we not teaching it? Is it because we don’t want white kids to feel guilty? How about Black children when they learn about slavery? How about Native Americans when they learn about what happened to their people? How about Arab kids in our own lifetime after 9/11? If we don’t learn, if we keep ignoring, we cannot heal,” Schierling said. 

Despite the difference in opinions, all share the same goal of doing what they think is best for the future of their students. 

“It does give me peace of mind, but I hope that everybody is satisfied. I hope that parents who are concerned about the resolution, I hope that there are some things that can be adjusted to meet their needs and their requirements as well. You know, I don’t think it’s a one size fits all,” Molina said. 

The team of lawyers at Public Counsel representing the plaintiffs are planning to appeal the decision. The case is set to continue through the courts with the next hearing set for late March.