The Daily Sigh

So Being Anti-Islamophobia Is Unconstitutional?

Sigh. Some Americans are really just so stupid...

---
A federal judge on Tuesday rejected an attempt by parents to shut down San Diego Unified School District's anti-Islamophobia efforts, saying that they could not prove that the district's program was unconstitutional and favored Islam over other religions.

While Tuesday's decision did not close the case, the judge indicated in her 54-page ruling that she thinks the school district is likely to prevail.

The controversy began in 2016, when the school district decided to develop an initiative to address anti-Muslim bullying.

In April 2017, the school board voted to make a policy to protect Muslim students from bullying and increase education about Islam. It planned to do so while in partnership with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group that works to combat Islamophobia.

Six parents and two organizations, Citizens for Quality Education San Diego and San Diego Asian Americans for Equality Foundation, sued the district in May 2017 in response.

They claimed that the initiative and the district's proposed partnership with CAIR gave a discriminatory preference to Muslim students and Islam over other religions. They argued that the district was violating the establishment clause of the constitution, which has been found to prohibit the government from preferring one religion over another.

In response to the lawsuit, San Diego Unified backed off from a formal partnership with CAIR and instead partnered with the Anti-Defamation League on a broader anti-bullying program that included anti-Islamophobia efforts.

In her ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant wrote that the district's anti-Islamophobia efforts could benefit not just Muslim students, but students overall by working to combat bullying.

"Based on plaintiffs' own definitions, the initiative's focus is not on religion, but on conduct and behavior," Bashant wrote.

Bashant also wrote that there was no evidence that the school district was treating Islam more favorably than other religions.

"It is simply not accurate for plaintiffs to suggest that the district excludes organizations with focuses on other religions or religious groups from the district," Bashant wrote.

The school district's revised policy "should clear any remaining doubt about the district's secular purpose," Bashant wrote.

The plaintiffs are not satisfied with the school district's revised anti-bullying program because the district still included CAIR in its anti-bullying efforts, said Daniel Piedra, executive director of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, which is representing the parents and two organizations who sued.

"The court's comprehensive ruling rightfully recognized the sensitive First Amendment concerns in the public schools," Piedra said in a statement Tuesday. "But the judge failed to address the critical facts and well-established constitutional law proving that the district is clearly discriminating in favor of one religious sect. Despite today's ruling, our clients remain fully confident they have the Constitution on their side."

Tuesday's ruling did not end the case. Bashant only denied the parents' motion for a preliminary injunction, which was an attempt to stop the school district's anti-Islamophobia efforts immediately before moving forward with the rest of the case.

But in her ruling, Bashant said she does not think the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving their case. Because of this, the San Diego Unified School District expects to prevail, District General Counsel Andra Greene said Tuesday.

"We're very pleased that the judge thoroughly analyzed the issues and saw it our way," Greene said.