mandate

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma’s new public schools superintendent announced Wednesday he is rescinding a mandate from his predecessor that forced schools to incorporate the Bible into lesson plans for students.

Superintendent Lindel Fields said in a statement he has “no plans to distribute Bibles or a Biblical character education curriculum in classrooms.” The directive last year from former Superintendent Ryan Walters drew immediate condemnation from civil rights groups and prompted a lawsuit from a group of parents, teachers and religious leaders that is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. It was to have applied to students in grades 5 through 12.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed Fields to the superintendent’s post after Walters resigned last month to take a job in the private sector.

Jacki Phelps, an attorney for the Oklahoma State Department of Education, said she intends to notify the court of the agency’s plan to rescind the mandate and seek a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Many schools districts across the state had decided not to comply with the Bible mandate.

A spokeswoman for the state education department, Tara Thompson, said Fields believes the decision on whether the Bible should be incorporated into classroom instruction is one best left up to individual districts and that spending money on Bibles is not the best use of taxpayer resources.

Walters in March had announced plans to team up with country music singer Lee Greenwood seeking donations to get Bibles into classrooms after a legislative panel rejected his $3 million request to fund the effort. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the Bible mandate did not immediately comment.

Walters, a far-right Republican, made fighting “woke ideology”, banning certain books from school libraries and getting rid of “radical leftists” who he claims were indoctrinating children in classrooms a focal point of his administration. Since his election in 2020, he imposed a number of mandates on public schools and worked to develop new social studies standards for K-12 public school students that included teaching about conspiracy theories related to the 2020 presidential election. Those standards have been put on hold while a lawsuit challenging them moves forward.

Thompson said the agency plans to review all of Walters’ mandates, including a requirement that applicants from teacher jobs coming from California and New York take an ideology exam, to determine if those may also be rescinded.

“We need to review all of those mandates and provide clarity to schools moving forward,” she said.

Murphy writes for the Associated Press.

Maybe you can call Canada and Tesla (TSLA 3.94%) frenemies. The tension between the two entities has existed since Tesla allegedly manipulated Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) subsidy program. While Tesla believes it to be a misunderstanding and was later cleared of wrongdoing, it added to the political tension between the two nations, and added to the Canadian resentment toward Tesla CEO Elon Musk for then supporting the Trump administration.

It was a little messy, so it’s even more entertaining now that Canada might actually put more dollars in the pockets of Tesla. Here’s the situation.

What’s going on

Canadian automakers have been raising red flags and could be in for a bumpy ride if Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate is enforced as currently described and EV sales don’t accelerate. Essentially, Canada’s EV sales mandate requires an automaker to ensure a certain percentage of new cars, SUVs, and light-duty trucks sold are zero-emission vehicles including hybrids.

Originally the mandate was supposed to start at 20% in 2026, but now it will begin in 2027 with the caveat that the initial target will be a challenging 27%. The percentage will rise steadily every year until 2035 when all new vehicle sales are intended to be EVs. For context, EV sales in Canada nearly reached 15% of total sales in 2024, but that was when the government was offering consumer rebates up to $5,000.

Once funding ran dry for the rebate in January, sales took a mighty plunge. The most recent data from Statistics Canada shows EV sales generated 7.7% of all new vehicle sales in July — a far cry from what’s going to be required to meet standards on average.

Image source: Tesla.

What are Canadian autos to do?

As most investors following the industry know, there’s a way to comply with these mandates by purchasing zero-emission credits from companies that have a surplus. Companies such as Tesla that only sell EVs and have no gasoline vehicle sales to offset, can simply sell their credits to needy gasoline-heavy automakers and pocket the money — it’s great business for pure EV makers. Zero-emission credit sales were instrumental during Tesla’s early years and still have been a major contributor to its financials.

The good news for Tesla is that Canadian automakers may not have an option other than to begrudgingly purchase from Tesla despite the ruffled feathers between the two entities. According to Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association president Brian Kingston, with 2026 models already being purchased, Tesla would be one — if not the only — automaker with a surplus of credits on hand to sell to other companies.

It also gets a little more complicated because as the targets become more challenging there will be more demand and less supply of these credits available, forcing some automakers to buy them ahead of time to be utilized when necessary. According to Kingston, estimates show over $1 billion has already been committed to this and could cost the Canadian industry more than $3 billion by 2030.

What it all means

Zero-emission credits have been a huge business for Tesla, and the company has generated billions and billions of dollars over the years selling them to needy automakers. Unfortunately for Tesla and other EV makers, changing policy in the U.S. has erased the need for these credits in the states.

In fact, Tesla was estimated to generate $3 billion from credit revenue in 2025 alone before the policy change knocked that estimate down by 40%. Tesla’s credit revenue is expected to plunge even further next year to $595 million before becoming irrelevant in 2027.

For investors, an extremely valuable Tesla revenue stream is about to dry up, unless Canada’s mandate stays as written. While it wouldn’t generate near the revenue the U.S. credit situation has, it would still be a welcome development as credit revenue in the U.S. fades rapidly — and Tesla could sure use a small win right now.

A series of federal actions aimed at pressuring states to allow parents to opt out of school vaccine mandates for religious or personal reasons threatens to undermine California’s ironclad ban on such exemptions.

California is one of just five states that bans any non-medical exemptions, the result of a landmark 2015 law passed in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak. Connecticut, New York, Maine, and West Virginia have similar statutes.

The law is credited with bringing California’s rate of kindergartners vaccinated against the measles to 96.1% in the 2024-25 school year, up from 92.6% in 2014-15, even as the national rate declined. California is one of just 10 states with a kindergarten measles vaccination rate that exceeds the 95% threshold experts say is needed to achieve herd immunity.

If vaccine mandates are weakened, “we’re going to have more outbreaks, and schools are going to be less safe for the families who have children who are vulnerable,” said Dr. Eric Ball, a pediatrician in Orange County and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics California.

Engage with our community-funded journalism as we delve into child care, transitional kindergarten, health and other issues affecting children from birth through age 5.

Key actions to allow for vaccine exemptions include:

• Legislation introduced in Congress last month would withhold federal education funding from states without religious exemptions.
• A letter from the Department of Health and Human Services threatened to withhold federal vaccine funding from states that have any form of religious freedom or personal conscience laws but do not allow exemptions to vaccines. The move is “part of a larger effort by HHS to strengthen enforcement of laws protecting conscience and religious exercise.”
• Several lawsuits winding their way through the courts from parents — including in California — seek the right to a religious exemption, which may eventually come before the Supreme Court.

Legal experts say that taken together, these moves reveal a concerted effort to chip away at limits states like California have placed on parents’ ability to send their unvaccinated children to school.

“We should assume that every aspect of the administration, at least three justices of the Supreme Court, and a significant contingent in Congress are actively trying to implement changes to the law that would invalidate California’s … approach to not allowing non-medical exemptions,” said Lindsay Wiley, a law professor at UCLA.

In West Virginia, the approach is already proving successful. Despite the state legislature recently rejecting a bill that would have permitted religious exemptions for the first time, Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed an executive order allowing them, bolstered by a letter of support from HHS.

Vaccinations and syringes at Larchmont Pediatrics in Los Angeles.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

“Vaccination is considered one of public health’s greatest achievements, preventing the spread of serious illnesses, reducing hospitalizations and saving lives,” the statement said. “CDPH remains committed to ensuring that all Californians continue to have access to safe and effective vaccines that are based on credible, transparent and science-based evidence.”

The federal actions are occurring in a moment of growing anti-vaccine fervor within the Trump administration. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has long been an outspoken critic of vaccines, including the vaccine to prevent measles. As secretary of HHS, he has defunded mRNA research, limited COVID-19 shots to the elderly and those with preexisting medical conditions, and pledged to reveal a link between vaccines and autism.

California’s evolution on vaccine mandates

In 1961, California became one of the first states to permit residents to opt out of vaccines for a broad range of personal beliefs, as part of a law mandating the polio vaccine for school attendance.

For decades, few parents claimed the exemption, and the rate of children opting out of vaccines for non-medical reasons stayed around 0.5%, said Dr. Richard Pan, the former state senator who authored the 2015 law eliminating non-medical exemptions.

Pan said the rate of exemptions began to climb in the mid-2000s, when actress Jenny McCarthy appeared on Oprah and claimed that vaccines had caused her son’s autism. “But what really gave fuel” was the advent of Facebook and Twitter, said Pan. “Social media really connected people who are anti-vax and created an echo chamber.”

By the 2013-14 school year, 3.1% of California kindergartners were receiving a non-medical exemption to at least one required vaccine. The rate of kindergarteners fully vaccinated against the measles slipped to 92.3% — well below the 95% required for herd immunity.

In 2014, a single measles case at Disneyland spread to more than 140 people across the country, an outbreak that epidemiologists said was fueled by vaccine refusals. In this moment of crisis, Pan introduced SB277, making California the first state in nearly 35 years to eliminate non-medical vaccine exemptions.

The legislation received the support of many parents, especially those whose children could not be vaccinated for medical reasons and relied on the immunity of people around them. “The whole purpose of 277 was actually to protect the rights and the freedoms of families and their children to get an education who could not get vaccinated,” said Pan.

Despite bitter debate, no major religious denominations opposed the bill, Pan said.

“This really isn’t about religion,” Pan said. “This is about trying to find a loophole or an excuse for someone who doesn’t want to vaccinate their child.”

Parents say California’s mandate violates religious beliefs

A contingent of parents say their sincere religious beliefs prevent them from getting their children vaccinated.

In 2023, Amy and Steve Doescher of Placerville brought a federal lawsuit, along with two other families, against California claiming that SB277 had violated their right to freely exercise their religion by preventing them from sending their 16-year-old daughter to public school.

The Doeschers, who attend a church near their home, “prayed extensively and consulted the Bible when deciding whether to vaccinate their children, and they arrived at the firm religious conviction that vaccinations violate their creed,” according to a complaint filed as part of the lawsuit.

Their daughter, who is enrolled in a charter school independent study program, is unable to have “the typical interactions with children that ‘normal’ children get. This has caused much stigma.”

The lawsuit alleges that her parents have had to enroll her in gymnastics classes and spend $10,000 per year on independent study costs, “to make up for the socialization shortcomings caused by SB277.”

While the lawsuit was dismissed in June, it is now on appeal at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lawyers in a similar New York lawsuit brought by Amish parents have requested review from the Supreme Court.

“I do think it’s a cumulative moment of change,” said Christina Hildebrand, president and founder of A Voice for Choice, an advocacy group that sponsored the California lawsuit.

“If vaccines are so effective and they don’t have risk involved, then people should want to get them,” she said. “How good really is the product if you’re having to put a mandate on them?”

UCLA Law’s Wiley said she is sympathetic to sincere religious objectors, and herd immunity can still be reached even if a small number of people opt out. The problem, she said, is that they’re difficult for states to police for validity and “can really open the floodgates to vastly diminished vaccination rates.”

Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California at San Francisco who studies vaccines, said religious exemptions are often “used as a fig leaf for people who have safety concerns. The way the system works is that it privileges the good liars.”

As part of her research, she has found “a whole industry of people trying to help each other get exemptions” online, including those who offer sample requests to parents and workshops on how to claim a religious exemption for non-religious reasons.

Reiss points to numerous studies finding that making exemptions broader and easier to get tends to lead to lower vaccination rates and more outbreaks.

The volatile landscape for vaccine mandates

Since the COVID pandemic, states across the country have experienced a decline in the rate of kindergartners who are fully vaccinated, and an increase in parents seeking exemptions, according to a recent report from KFF, a nonprofit health research group.

Last week, Florida’s surgeon general announced the state would no longer require children to be vaccinated in order to attend public school, something that all 50 states currently require.

Threats are also mounting from Washington, D.C. The GRACE Act, which was introduced in Congress last month by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), would withhold federal education funding from any state that does not offer parents the right to opt out of vaccines for religious reasons.

The bill, if eventually approved and signed into law by President Trump, would also explicitly prevent states, including California, from requiring any documentation from parents to prove a sincere religious conviction against vaccines.

“Freedom of speech and religion is the most sacred right guaranteed under our Constitution,” Rep. Steube said in a statement to The Times. “No student or their family should ever be coerced into sacrificing their faith or jumping through loopholes to comply with a vaccine requirement.”

Last week, Kennedy weighed in on the issue. He said in a letter that if a state already has statutes on the books protecting religious freedom or personal conscience in any form, those laws must extend to vaccine opt-outs. If states with such laws do not comply with the directive, they could lose funding for the federal Vaccines for Children Program, which funds vaccines for low-income children.

California does not have religious freedom or personal conscience statues. But 29 other states have passed religious freedom laws, and 18 have parental rights laws, which legal experts said could be used by the federal government to compel states to offer vaccine opt-outs.

“States have the authority to balance public health goals with individual freedom, and honoring those decisions builds trust” Kennedy wrote. “Protecting both public health and personal liberty is how we restore faith in our institutions and Make America Healthy Again.”

Several legal experts said the approach was alarming.

“I’m very concerned that this is part of a playbook where they’re going on a state and federal level, to push on these laws,” said Richard Hughes, a lawyer with Epstein Becker Green in Washington, D.C., who has been working on vaccine law for two decades. “This is a massive federal overreach, and it’s incredibly inappropriate.”

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced late Saturday that he would sign an executive order requiring voters to present identification when casting ballots.

“Voter ID must be part of every single vote. No exceptions!” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. “I will be doing an executive order to that end! Also, no mail-in voting, except for those that are very ill, and the far away military. Use paper ballots only!”

The president did not provide any further details about the planned executive order, which comes amid his push to influence how elections are carried out in the United States. Trump has long claimed without evidence that voter fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election.

This is not Trump’s first foray into voter ID via executive order. In March, he signed a similar mandate requiring documentary proof of citizenship, such as passports or government-issued IDs, for voter registration in federal elections.

At the time, a White House fact sheet described the executive order as a way “to protect the integrity of American elections.”

“There are other steps that we will be taking in the coming weeks and we think we’ll be able to end up getting fair elections,” Trump hinted at the time. “This country is so sick because of the elections, the fake elections and the bad elections and we’re going to straighten it out one way or the other.”

But that order encountered immediate backlash, with critics characterizing it as a modern-day poll tax, arguing that many Americans lack the required documents, and warning it would disenfranchise low-income, elderly and marginalized voters.

A federal court later blocked the order’s documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms, citing constitutional overreach.

Similarly, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and others have vocally opposed nationwide voter ID mandates, viewing them as attempts to undermine progressive state-level voting reforms and restrict access to the ballot box.

It is expected that the latest executive order will also be widely and swiftly challenged ahead of the midterm elections in November 2026.

The United Nations Security Council voted on Thursday to extend the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, until the end of 2026 and then to begin an “orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal” over the course of 2027.

The winding down of UNIFIL has been pushed heavily by Israel and the United States, who accuse the group of providing political cover for Hezbollah since the 2006 war and failing to work to disarm Hezbollah, despite that not being the UN body’s stated mission.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to occupy at least five points on Lebanese territory following its invasion of south Lebanon last October. A ceasefire agreement reached in November stipulated that Israeli troops should withdraw from south Lebanon, but that has not yet happened.

So what does the end of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mean for the border area between Lebanon and Israel? Here’s what you need to know.

What happens now?

UNIFIL will stay in south Lebanon until December 31, 2026.

After that, it will have a year to withdraw its troops and hand over control of the area to the Lebanese Army.

The development seems to be in Israel’s favour, considering Israel’s disproportionate advantage in military power, technology, and US support. Israel regularly hits Lebanon with military attacks, and even before October 2023, when Hezbollah entered the war with Israel, Israel’s air force regularly violated Lebanon’s airspace with surveillance flyovers.

With UNIFIL gone, there will be no international body to monitor these violations.

In a statement in advance of the vote, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti questioned how UN Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted at the end of the 2006 war to stop hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah,  could be implemented with Israeli forces still in Lebanon.

“The commitment of the Lebanese government is there, but how can they be deployed everywhere in the south if the [Israeli military] are still present in the south?” he asked.

“So these are the things that are very difficult to comprehend.”

What is UNIFIL?

Founded in 1978, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops after Israel invaded southern Lebanon earlier that year. Israel would reinvade in 1982 and occupy south Lebanon until 2000, when Israeli forces were expelled by Hezbollah.

UNIFIL is a peacekeeping mission of more than 10,000 peacekeepers from 47 countries, with the highest number of them coming from Indonesia and Italy.

It monitors the entire border region and reports violations of UN Resolution 1701.

Its headquarters are in Naqoura, a coastal town that Israel has focused its attacks on. Al Jazeera found earlier this year that Israel destroyed most of the town after the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon in November 2024, not during fighting.

UNIFIL’s operations take place across 1,060sq km (409 square miles) of the south, where it has 50 positions on Lebanese territory.

Can UNIFIL use force?

Only in self-defence or to protect civilians under attack.

As a peacekeeping force, UNIFIL does not typically fire on either Israel or Hezbollah.

In recent cases where its vehicles have been attacked, UNIFIL used nonlethal force to defend itself.

How do the Israelis feel about UNIFIL?

They’re not fans.

Israel has attacked UNIFIL peacekeepers in the past, and during the war last year, UNIFIL accused Israel of deliberate and direct attacks on its peacekeepers.

Unlike in Gaza, where the only voices to report on Israeli attacks or killings of civilians are Palestinian voices, UNIFIL is a body with an international mandate and legitimacy that reports on Israeli attacks and violations in southern Lebanon.

For its part, the US sees UNIFIL as a waste of money that doesn’t directly confront Hezbollah’s influence in south Lebanon.

Under President Donald Trump, the US has increasingly adopted Israel’s position on UNIFIL.

“This will be the last time the United States will support an extension of UNIFIL,” said Dorothy Shea, acting US ambassador to the UN. “The United States notes that the first ‘i’ in UNIFIL stands for ‘interim’. The time has come for UNIFIL’s mission to end.”

What’s wrong with Hezbollah?

Israel and the US view Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organisation.

Hezbollah was formed in the 1980s as a response to Israel’s occupation of Lebanon and eventually drove the occupiers out of south Lebanon. The two parties fought a war to a stalemate in 2006, though most of the casualties and destruction were incurred by Lebanon.

Between 2006 and last year, Israel viewed Hezbollah as a primary threat, and its weapons as a deterrence to military action. Since November’s ceasefire, Israel’s military has attacked southern Lebanon, and occasionally struck closer to Beirut, without restraint, despite an agreement that hostilities would cease.

Israel claims it is attacking Hezbollah targets, though civilians were regularly killed during the war last year and continue to die in Israeli strikes.

What about the Lebanese?

The current Lebanese government supported UNIFIL’s renewal.

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam welcomed the vote to renew UNIFIL’s mandate, saying it “reiterates the call for Israel to withdraw its forces from the five sites it continues to occupy, and affirms the necessity of extending state authority over all its territory”.

But the Lebanese government aside, there is a wider spectrum of views on UNIFIL in south Lebanon.

While some Lebanese locals support the peacekeepers’ presence, many have been vocally critical of them.

In May, civilians wielding axes and rods attacked a UN vehicle in south Lebanon. Many southerners who cannot return to their homes in south Lebanon, either because their villages have been razed to the ground by Israel or because there is still a threat of Israeli attacks, have taken out their frustration against UNIFIL troops. Others reportedly view them with suspicion.

Viral videos have shown confrontations between Lebanese civilians and UNIFIL troops. In one, a local smacks a Finnish UNIFIL peacekeeper across the face after an argument.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says change upholds privacy of US users.

Apple will no longer be forced to provide the United Kingdom’s government with access to American citizens’ encrypted data, Washington’s spy chief has said, signalling the end of a months-long transatlantic privacy row.

Tulsi Gabbard, the United States’ director of national intelligence, said on Monday that London agreed to drop its requirement for Apple to provide a “back door” that would have allowed access to the protected data of US users and “encroached on our civil liberties”.

Gabbard said the reversal was the result of months of engagement with the UK to “ensure Americans’ private data remains private and our constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected”.

The UK government said it does not comment on operational matters, but that London and Washington have longstanding joint security and intelligence arrangements that include safeguards to protect privacy.

“We will continue to build on those arrangements, and we will also continue to maintain a strong security framework to ensure that we can continue to pursue terrorists and serious criminals operating in the UK,” a government spokesperson said.

“We will always take all actions necessary at the domestic level to keep UK citizens safe.”

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The UK’s climbdown on encryption comes after Apple in February announced it could no longer offer advanced data protection, its highest-level security feature, in the country.

While Apple did not provide a reason for the change at the time, the announcement came after The Washington Post reported that UK security officials had secretly ordered the California-based tech giant to provide blanket access to cloud data belonging to users around the world.

Under the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, authorities may compel companies to remove encryption under what is known as a “technical capability notice”.

Firms that receive a notice are legally bound to secrecy about the order unless otherwise granted permission by the government.

Like other tech giants, Apple has marketed its use of end-to-end encryption as proof of its steadfast commitment to the privacy of its users.

End-to-end encryption scrambles data so it cannot be read by third parties, including law enforcement and tech companies themselves.

Governments around the world have made numerous attempts to undermine or bypass encryption, saying that it shields serious criminals from scrutiny.

Privacy experts and civil liberties advocates have condemned efforts to weaken the technology, arguing that they treat innocent people as potential criminals and put the privacy and security of all users at risk.

John Pane, chair of the advocacy group Electronic Frontiers Australia, welcomed the UK’s reversal as a win for digital rights and safety.

“Were Apple to create a backdoor to its encrypted user data it would create a significant risk which could be exploited by cybercriminals and authoritarian governments,” Pane told Al Jazeera.

“EFA believes access to encryption technologies is vital for individuals and groups to be able to safeguard the security and privacy of their information and it is also  fundamental to the existence of the digital economy. The right to use encrypted communications must be enshrined in law.”

NEW ORLEANS — A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state’s public school classrooms is unconstitutional.

The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state, and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students — especially those who are not Christian.

The mandate has been touted by Republicans, including President Trump, and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court’s decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit.

“All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution,” said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

The appeals court’s rulings “interpret the law for all of Louisiana,” Hayes added. “Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.”

Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling applied only to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit and that she would seek to appeal the ruling.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ order stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana schoolchildren from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates 1st Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion.

The mandate was signed into law last June by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry.

The court’s ruling backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to take steps to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision.

Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the conservative court on the issue of religion and government.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.

In 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.

Cline and Brook write for the Associated Press.

California became a national pioneer four years ago by passing a law to make ethnic studies a high school graduation requirement. But only months before the policy is to take effect, Gov. Gavin Newsom is withholding state funding — delaying the mandate as the course comes under renewed fire.

The pause has left school districts throughout the state in limbo nearly four years after the launch deadline was set. Beginning this fall, students entering 9th grade would have been the first class required to pass a one-semester class at some point during their high school years.

But under the 2021 law, the mandate to reach 5.8 million students does not take effect unless the state provides more money to pay for the course. The funding would cover the cost of materials and the teacher staffing and training that go along with adding a new field of study.

Newsom’s office, which will issue its May revision of next year’s proposed state budget Wednesday amid a tightening financial outlook, did not respond to questions about why he has not included funding for the ethnic studies requirement that he approved, praising it as an avenue to “teach students about the diverse communities that comprise California.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Finance answered on Newsom’s behalf.

“The budget doesn’t include funding that would trigger the ethnic studies graduation requirement,” said H.D. Palmer. As to the reason why, “the short answer is that the state has limited available ongoing resources.”

At the onset, $50 million in seed money was allocated statewide, but the law stated an additional unspecified amount would be needed in the future. State officials later set that amount at about $276 million. But several years have passed without state officials budgeting the funding.

As California’s more than 1,600 high schools wind down for the year, it is uncertain how many will offer the course in the fall. Some — including Los Angeles Unified, Santa Monica Unified and Alhambra Unified — will go forward with ethnic studies no matter what. Some of these districts, including L.A. Unified, already have their own ethnic studies graduation requirement.

Others — including Chino Valley Unified — will shelve the class until the law forces them to offer it.

Still others, such as Lynwood Unified, in south L.A. County, say they are deeply concerned about any wavering in the state’s commitment to the subject.

State funding would be “critically important for sustainability,” according to a Lynwood district statement. Without it, the school district is going to cancel the course and instead teach units of ethnic studies within other classes.

“We remain committed to the principles and purpose behind ethnic studies — ensuring our students see themselves and others reflected in the curriculum,” Lynwood Supt. Gudiel R. Crosthwaite said. “However, like many school districts across California, we are navigating the dual challenge of declining enrollment and insufficient state funding to support new course mandates.”

Renewed controversy

The current political environment complicates the launch of the ethnic studies requirement.

State officials were moving toward an ethnic studies requirement amid the nation’s racial reckoning after the 2020 murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, and violent attacks on Asian Americans.

Many ethnic studies supporters believe that anti-racist teachings and exploring the history and perspectives of marginalized groups — Black and Indigenous people, Asians and Latinos — are key to bridging misunderstanding among students, reducing racial and ethnic conflict, and motivating teenagers to pursue social justice causes.

But not everyone sees ethnic studies the same way. Some religious and political conservatives view the state’s guidelines for ethnic studies as the kind of “woke” ideologies in education that President Trump has vowed to eliminate as he seeks to do away with diversity, equity and inclusion programming in schools.

California’s ethnic studies curriculum guide embraces pro-LGBTQ+ content and speaks of connecting students to “contemporary social movements that struggle for social justice and an equitable and democratic society, and conceptualize, imagine, and build new possibilities for a post-racist, post-systemic-racism society.”

With tensions high over how race, religion and ethnicity are taught in schools, state lawmakers recently explored legislation that would have put strict standards on how ethnic studies could be taught. That bill was supported by 31 legislators and its sponsors expressed particular concern about how ethnic studies teachers are presenting Jews and the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — re-igniting long-simmering concerns about the field of study.

Amid weekend discussions, however, the group shelved the bill — which dealt only with ethnic studies. Instead, lawmakers unveiled a broader piece of school legislation aimed at ending campus antisemitism while providing greater “anti-discrimination protections related to nationality and religion.”

A hearing on the new bill is set for Wednesday.

Teacher Amber Palma talks with student Angel Alvarez during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

Although the bill’s provisions are still being crafted, it would apply to any course or schooling activity — and include a mechanism for stronger oversight of K-12 ethnic studies, which remains central to the concerns of the bill’s primary sponsors, including Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay).

“Jewish families and children have been made, in many instances, to feel unwelcome or made the targets of hate and discrimination in school — where they’re supposed to feel safe and supported,” Addis said. “We want to get all the things in place to get back to what schools are supposed to be doing.”

Troy Flint, chief communications officer for the California School Boards Assn. said the ethnic studies requirement “has been fraught since its inception, and there have been starts, stumbles and restarts to try and develop a piece of legislation that’s amenable to all the different interest groups. … And I don’t know that we’ve reached that point yet.”

“School districts are in a bind,” both in terms of their costs and their academic program, he added, “because there’s a possibility a mandate could be implemented, but it’s uncertain.”

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

What’s happened since the law was approved?

Newsom signed the ethnic studies graduation requirement into law in 2021, giving districts four years to develop one or more ethnic studies classes, using a menu of materials and topics from the nearly 700-page state model curriculum guide, approved by the State Board of Education.

That curriculum guide had been a source of controversy — leading Newsom to veto an earlier bill for an ethnic studies requirement. After substantial revisions, the final version eliminated course materials that likened the Palestinian cause, in its conflict with Israel, to the struggles of marginalized groups in America — because critics said it lacked balance or nuance.

The revision also toned down what critics characterized as obscure academic jargon and bias against capitalism. More groups were added as potential study topics, including Jewish Americans, Sikhs and Armenians.

Under current law, the state’s model curriculum serves as a guide — not a required set of lessons. School districts are responsible for developing their courses and are free to teach units that reflect their enrollment. Students in Glendale, with its large Armenian American population, for example, could study the Armenian immigrant experience.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

This flexibility has allowed academic experts in the field to prepare prepackaged courses and lessons that vary widely to help schools prepare. Some are free to download. Independent Institute, for example, has posted one free curriculum that consciously aims to be less controversial in terms of current political disputes.

The group with perhaps the most long-standing ties to the field of ethnic studies in California has created a curriculum called Liberated Ethnic Studies. This curriculum also is free to download, although some of its creators and supporters have worked as school district consultants.

A portion of the Liberated content guide has worried a coalition of Jewish groups who contend portions of the curriculum veer toward antisemitism. Their concerns have fueled ongoing debate in Sacramento about the need for stricter course standards.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

Creators of the Liberated materials had been involved in writing the first version of the state’s model curriculum — which also was criticized by Jewish groups and legislators. State officials ultimately removed the Liberated academics from involvement in the state’s curriculum guide. And the academics, in turn, disowned the state curriculum guide and created their own materials.

A leader of the Liberated curriculum effort, Cal State Northridge professor of Chicano and Chicana studies Theresa Montaño, said she does not know how may school districts are using their lessons because they can be downloaded for free. She estimated that 70% of the Liberated content is virtually identical to the state’s revised model curriculum.

She said concerns about politicized content are overwrought.

“Ethnic studies was born out of a movement to begin to make certain that communities of color have the rightful location in the curriculum,” Montaño said.

She added that the scholars who put together the Liberated contents are recognized leading experts in an academically rigorous field that has developed over the last 60 years.

Students take part in an activity during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

What’s happening in the classroom?

Ethnic studies teacher Amber Palma teaches at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood and virtually all of her students are Latino with immigrant backgrounds — and some degree of current political context is unavoidable.

“If the class is about your identity and your place in this American society — and that is a real social political issue that you are facing in context as we speak — you can’t say we’re going to not talk about what’s happening,” Palma said. “You have to address concerns, as you would with any class, with any kids.”

“Given our climate and the challenges that our students and their families and their communities are facing, I think we really do need to push the sense of empowerment, a sense of agency,” said Palma, whose district developed its own curriculum.

Students listen as teacher Amber Palma leads a discussion during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

“If done right, ethnic studies is a good thing for all students,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, a lobbying group whose positions include supporting Israel’s right to exist. “Unfortunately … we have seen far too many instances of factually inaccurate and antisemitic content entering classrooms,” he said.

Bocarsly said members of his coalition of Jewish groups estimate there are real or potential problems in several dozen school districts among the 1,000 in California, based on issues that have emerged. The extent to which the Liberated curriculum is used in these districts has not been determined.

Assemblymember Addis is concerned that there could be inappropriate elements of Liberated’s alleged bias affecting “hundreds and hundreds” of school districts up and down the state.

In April, the California Department of Education concluded that two Bay Area ethnic studies teachers in the Campbell Union High School District violated California law when they included content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was allegedly biased and discriminated against Jewish students.

How are school districts responding?

A winter clash in the Palo Alto, Calif., school district underscores the kinds of debates that have unfolded about the course.

In a district with 40% Asian enrollment, some complained the course defined power and privilege in a way that discounted the hard work that resulted in prosperity for many immigrants. Critics also accused district officials of a lack of transparency and of not allowing for meaningful input into course content. Some were concerned that topics would be divisive.

“As feared, rancor has ensued,” said Lauren Janov, a critic of the Liberated curriculum and co-founder of Palo Alto Parent Alliance. “From the start, the state lost control of ethnic studies.”

In January, the Palo Alto board approved its own ethnic studies requirement by a 3-2 vote.

In February, Santa Ana Unified shelved three ethnic studies classes as part of a legal settlement reached with a coalition of Jewish groups. The groups had filed a lawsuit alleging that secrecy and antisemitism defined the district’s ethnic studies rollout.

The district still offers various other ethnic studies courses and has no plans to reverse policy, regardless of state funding, a district spokesperson said.

Student Arianne Moreno distributes an assignment during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

In San Bernardino County, the Chino Valley Unified school board president also raises cost as an issue but sees the mandate pause as an opportunity to step back from ethnic studies.

“We made it clear that the course will not be implemented unless the state mandate goes into effect,” said Sonja Shaw, a pro-Trump Republican who is running for state superintendent of public instruction.

“Much of the ethnic studies already being pushed reflects divisive, politically driven ideology that doesn’t unite students; it separates them. …While kids are falling behind in reading, writing and math, the state continues to push its political agendas onto children,” Shaw said.

In Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest school system, 11 courses can satisfy the district’s requirement, including a broad survey course and more specialized classes, such as African American Literature, American Indian Studies and Exploring Visual Arts through Ethnic Studies.