NEWS
Trump signs executive order to end DEI initiatives. Page 2
LIFESTYLE
Music influences social-political movements. Page 6
SCI/TECH
Avian influenza creates egg shortages.
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL 50 EMBARCADERO RD. PALO ALTO, CA 94301
NON-PROFIT ORG U.S. POSTAGE
PAI D PALO ALTO PERMIT #44
Page 13
The Campanile Vol. CVII, No. 6
Palo Alto High School, 50 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301
BOARD P FACES BROWN ACT FILING
Holden Lee & Kate Xia Editors-in-Chief
BOTTOM: The Palo Alto Board of Education discusses ethnic studies during the Jan. 23 meeting. "(Board President Shana) Segal said that if the board were to vote again, to vote against the curriculum, that essentially, they would be overturning the mandate, which was not the case at all,” Crystal said. Segal did not respond to requests for interview..
PE RM IS SI O H W IT US ED RA / KA W AT AR YA N
TOP: Alan Crystal, a PAUSD parent who has filed a Brown Act complaint against the district, raises a sign during the Jan. 23 board meeting. “We (should) go through a process where we can actually see what’s being proposed and have a chance to perhaps modify or enhance it if it needs adjustments,” Crystal said. “Then when it comes to a vote and it’s a decision for the board to make, they can do it in a way that really feels transparent and fair as opposed to one where it feels like it’s been rushed for no apparent purpose.”
n
alo Alto parent Alan Crystal filed a Brown Act complaint against the Palo Alto Board of Education on Feb. 21. The board has 30 days from the initial filing to respond — otherwise, the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office could step in to investigate the complaint and potentially force a revote on the board’s approval of the required freshman ethnic studies course scheduled to begin next school year. The complaint alleges board members committed at least two Brown Act violations related to a Jan. 23 special board meeting. The first complaint cites California Government Code 54954.2 which states that school boards are prohibited from taking action on “any item not appearing on the posted agenda,” and agendas must contain “a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted.” In an interview with The Campanile, Crystal said the board misled the public about the agenda and during the board meeting. “What they ended up voting for was essentially to put in a new date for the mandate of the class,” Crystal said. “The last board had approved that there would be a requirement for the class of 2030 whereas what was ended up voted on was for the class of 2029, which was both in the agenda and when (board) President (Shana) Segal presented the vote. She said that if the board were to vote again, to vote against the curriculum, that essentially, they would be overturning the mandate, which was not the case at all.” Segal did not respond to requests for an interview, but board Vice President Shounak Dharap said the 2023 vote approved a requirement for the class of 2029 during the Jan. 23 board meeting. Dharap said he could not comment on the Brown Act complaint though. Jennifer DiBrienza, board president during the 2023 vote, said the board agreed to require ethnic studies for the class of 2029 during the Sept. 12, 2023 board meeting but did not actually vote on the requirement. “The question posed to us was, ‘Should we implement it for the class of 2028, 2029 or 2030?’” DiBrienza said. “There was no vote taken there, but clearly the majority of the board showed an interest in either 2028 or 2029.”
Wednesday, March 12, 2025 The 2023 vote was held on Oct. 11, 2023, during the approval of Board Policy 6146.1, which said “Beginning with the 2029-30 school year, a student (must complete) a one-semester course in ethnic studies to graduate from high school.” DiBrienza said she assumed BP 6146.1 was referring to the 2028-29 school year when the board voted 5-0 to approve the requirement for the class of 2030. "The board made in September of 2023 that their intention was to make it a requirement for the class of 2028 or for the class of 2029," DiBrienza said. "What I believe happened was that months earlier, that had been put in as a placeholder — when they were talking about ethnic studies, the state law said that it was mandated by the class of 2030 … So when they were drafting that policy, and they were making various changes to the graduation requirements, they stuck that in there … and then in September, we had this discussion where we said 2028 or 2029, and that document didn’t get updated to reflect that, and we missed it.” Crystal said board member Josh Salcman’s deciding vote in favor of requiring ethnic studies for the class of 2029 was influenced by the assumption that voting against the requirement would be reversing a previously approved mandate. Salcman did not respond to requests for an interview. Crystal's complaint also says the board violated California Government Code Sections 54952.2 and 54953 which says “a majority of the members … shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications … to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative.” Prior to the Jan. 23 board meeting, according to the complaint, “Segal partnered on the Ethnic Studies course … with Trustee Salcman. President Segal also had substantive discussions on this matter with Vice President Dharap since the two are members of the agenda-setting committee.” The third alleged violation stems from the district's responses to Public Records Act requests. By law, the district must respond within 10 days of receiving a PRA request. A PAUSD parent who filed a PRA and requested anonymity due to heightened tensions around the issue said they sent a request for specific information about the proposed ethnic studies curriculum by email on Oct. 17, 2024, to PAUSD Manager of Policy & Legal Compliance Amanda Bark. On Oct. 29, this parent officially filed their PRA request through the district website and received an automatic response. They said they followed up on the request on Nov. 11 and Nov. 19 and then went to the district office because the district had not responded within the required 10 days. On Nov. 20, 22 days after the initial filing, Bark sent the parent documents from the existing ethnic studies elective and said there was no pilot course. After the parent continued to follow up on their PRA request, they said they received a response on Nov. 29 in which the district said it was exempt from providing the materials requested because they only had preliminary drafts. However, after further exchanges, on Dec. 19, the parent said Bark sent them the Scope and Sequence Calendar for ethnic studies that had no usable links to content. The parent said they didn’t receive any further materials until Jan. 22, which was when they received the Scope and Sequence document with updated links. During the Jan. 23 board meeting, however, the document was instead confirmed to be a year-old brainstorming document. Crystal said while he thinks the idea of an ethnic studies class is beneficial, a pause in implementation is necessary. “We (should) go through a process where we can actually see what’s being proposed and have a chance to perhaps modify or enhance it if it needs adjustments,” Crystal said. “Then when it comes to a vote, and it’s a decision for the board to make, they can do it in a way that really feels transparent and fair as opposed to one where it feels like it’s been rushed for no apparent purpose.” Superintendent Don Austin and board member Alison Kamhi did not respond to requests for an interview. Board member Rowena Chiu said she was not aware of the Brown Act filing.