A Letter from a Local Parents' Rights Lawyer

October 14, 2024

To my fellow EUSD community:

At the October 9, 2024, City Council meeting (here at 34:40), Ms. Sproul and Ms. Lee responded to our open letter and, for the first time, publicly confirmed what they clearly planned to conceal in their campaigns: That they are running for office because they see it as their mission to protect children from what they perceive as the school district’s “policy that supports the gender transitioning of elementary school children without parental consent at school” and the district’s “push for transgender curriculum in school without parental consent.” (I am proud of the 250+ people who assembled within two days to pressure them to be out of the closet about this; we knew it to be true, despite all references being scrubbed from their public messaging.)

Truthfully, at first blush, I can see why this platform appeals to some: Every parent wants to be sure we are the decision-makers in our young children’s lives about issues as important as this. And importantly, under current policy and practice in our district, we are able to be. 

As far as I am aware, no elementary student in this district (or state, or world, for that matter) has been “medically transitioned” by a school behind parents’ backs.

About families who may one day face a school-aged child who is questioning their gender, I say: Let the children, their parents, their doctors, and any community members their parents invite in, make those delicate and private decisions without being thrown into political scrutiny

by Ms. Sproul, Ms. Lee, and their base. Parents and families need information, privacy, and support in those times, not whatever this is that Ms. Sproul and Ms. Lee are offering.

I will openly discuss policy (and state law limitations on local policy), with Ms. Lee and Ms. Sproul at any time. Sacramento is the place to protest AB-1955, if that is their goal. (Policies that presume and prefer parental notification, like ours, may be the most any California school district can do for parents under that law.) They have aired concerns that children in conservative families will find themselves in foster care if they question their gender. Given my 20+ years working for families against CPS, if that were true, you’d certainly have an audience with me. I have never seen it happen. If it did, objections would be properly made to the court of law removing the child, or the county child welfare bureau; schools don’t send children to foster care.

But Ms. Lee and Ms. Sproul know that, and this policy objective is not the point; it is merely a talking point in a broader national playbook, scripted by an activist religious faction of the right to grab power and Christianize public schools. (See here, here, and here.)

What seems to truly drive these candidates is their second point: Their complaint that the schools are “pushing transgender curriculum” in schools. It’s not just about trans representation, but gay people too. Ms. Sproul, in particular,  is clear in her belief that representation of LGBT people (what she calls “Queer Theory”) is condonement of “child abuse and incest.” Ms. Sproul and Ms. Lee appear to be footsoldiers for their supporters, who have long complained about our district’s unapologetic commitment to representation of marginalized people. EUSD has increased representation and celebration of people of color, people with disabilities, and, yes, LGBTQIA+ people. This is not indoctrination. This is not “transitioning” children, or setting them on a path toward transition. And it is not undermining the sanctity of parenting, as they say. It’s a reflection of real life in 2024 in America, and the people our children encounter in their communities, both inside and outside of our nine wonderful schools. If Ms. Sproul and Ms. Lee and their followers want to teach their children about exclusion, they are free to do so at home, just as many of us engage with our children about our own families’ culture and beliefs beyond what is shown in textbooks.

As a biracial child at Park Dale Lane in the 1980s, I cannot overstate what it would have meant to me to read a book in my class celebrating Korean culture in an environment where I begged my mother to stop sending me hot, non-American lunches due to pressures I felt in school. Relax. That is all that representation is about. Ms. Lee and Ms. Sproul’s followers seem to be under the misconception that, in order to navigate a public space, they have a right to demand that such a space operate under the framework of their particular religion and belief system. That parental “right” doesn’t exist, especially when doing so would deny the existence of a marginalized group. I can’t think of anything more un-American. Hindu neighbors don’t demand that public school libraries eradicate references to beef eating. Jewish neighbors accept lots of (secular-ish) Christmas insignia during the holiday season. Under the scheme these candidates advocate for, a teacher can’t even engage with Halloween themes without parental opt-out. (My own mother thought Halloween was satanic; she dressed us as angels and sent us out the door.) Public schools have always reflected a larger community than any particular child’s home. That’s the beauty of it.

Ms. Sproul and Ms. Lee: Stop spreading fear-mongering disinformation about this town, our teachers, and our district. And let us know any time what lies our open letter contained. Our ears are open, our pens ready to publish any warranted retraction. We’ll wait.

Mary Anne Mendenhall

Leucadian,

Paul Ecke Central mom,

Park Dale Lane alum,

parents’ rights attorney,

voter.