Latest news with #DawnAddis
Politico
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Why Sacramento is fighting over antisemitism in schools
Presented by SCHOOL SKIRMISH: California educators and Jewish advocates are publicly bashing each other over legislation meant to prevent antisemitism in schools, exposing deepening divisions over the fraught issue. With the two sides far apart, Assemblymembers Rick Chavez Zbur and Dawn Addis yanked their bill — which would penalize schools for creating antisemitic learning environments and restrict what they teach about the Israel-Gaza conflict — from today's Senate Education Committee agenda. Now, they must scramble to ease forceful opposition from progressive groups, school administrators and the powerful California Teachers Association during their month-long summer break before bringing a revised proposal back during the last weeks of session. More than a year after campus protests over the war in Gaza rocked the state, Jewish lawmakers continue to raise the alarm about rising rates of antisemitic incidents at schools. The debate over such legislation in the Capitol has been very personal and at times raw — particularly for members of the Legislative Jewish Caucus, as their proposals run into concerns about educational censorship. Progressive groups — including Indivisible California and various chapters of the Democratic Socialists of America and Jewish Voice for Peace — called the legislation 'dangerous and unnecessary' in a letter to the committee. They argue it's meant to 'repress and censor educational content and protect the state of Israel from criticism, rather than address the real problem of antisemitism.' In spite of the impasse, leaders insist they want to 'send an antisemitism bill to the Governor by the end of this year's legislative session in September.' The lawmakers only recently unveiled their latest version of the proposal, which would punish schools found to be hostile toward Jewish students and restrict how schools teach about Israel, such as banning messaging 'directly or indirectly denying the right of Israel to exist or saying that Jewish people don't belong to a country or community.' It would also create a statewide antisemitism coordinator position, another point of contention with the teachers' union because it would focus on just one group. The legislation advanced from the Assembly last month with vague placeholder language after CTA shut down an earlier version that would have limited lessons about the Gaza war in ethnic studies classes. It prompted an emotional floor discussion about antisemitism, with Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan saying through tears that 'students are being taught to hate my children … because they're Jewish in the public schools in California.' Progressives framed the delay as a win, but remained wary. Theresa Montaño, who serves on leadership of the California Faculty Association, said that the bill's crafters went from 'multiple perspectives' to 'one perspective' as they got closer to releasing the language. 'The intended motivation around this bill was particularly chilling from the beginning, when it started with ethnic studies, to this policing of classroom teachers, to now — 'We're going to come up with something, we just don't know what it is,'' Montaño said. 'That's still kind of scary to me.' The Jewish Public Affairs Committee, the main group behind the legislation, blasted the teachers union earlier in the week when the proposal's fate was in serious doubt. David Bocarsly, JPAC's executive director, said the group agreed to focus broadly on antisemitism at CTA's request, so he was dismayed that the union's opposition pointed to the antisemitism prevention coordinator position and proposed curriculum restrictions, arguing it is 'something that we don't do for any other active conflict in the world.' 'The hypocrisy is so clear — when we only have this bill in this version because they suggested it,' Bocarsly said. CTA's opposition has created tension inside and outside the union, including with its Jewish Affairs Caucus. Addis, who was a public school teacher for two decades and had 'very, very positive relationships' with CTA, said the union's position caused her to do 'quite a bit of soul searching.' She called it 'hurtful and harmful,' though she said she remains open to collaborating. 'It's really important to continue the conversation and that they look for ways to engage more constructively and bring forward ideas so that, as this bill moves forward, they can be seen as a partner with the Jewish community,' Addis said. 'That's my biggest hope.' IT'S WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@ WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY LAWSUIT WATCH: Gov. Gavin Newsom hinted that California may file yet another lawsuit against Donald Trump's administration over federal immigration action in Los Angeles' MacArthur Park. 'Yes, in fact, one of the first texts I'm going to send back is to Rob Bonta, 'cause he just reached out to me right before I jumped in here,' Newsom told reporters today in response to a question about potential legal action over the incident. 'And we've got the city one, the local ones, at the state, so there's a lot of different levers that we could pull,' the governor added. Rifle-toting agents went to the park on Monday, seemingly to create an intimidating display rather than arrest undocumented residents. The move sparked an appearance from Mayor Karen Bass, who later described the scene she encountered when she pulled up. 'I got alerted that there was an ICE operation, military intervention — who knows — at MacArthur Park. I turned around. We went to the park,' Bass said. 'I could see a helicopter in the air. I think it was a Black Hawk helicopter. And I saw military tanks.' Los Angeles city and county joined a federal class-action lawsuit on Tuesday, and California and other blue states also weighed in on the case this week, asking the court to intervene. ON THE (CAMPAIGN?) TRAIL FANCY SEEING YOU HERE: Newsom's visit to rural South Carolina today became an impromptu reunion for Republican expats eager to harp on the liberal boogeyman from their former state. The one-time Californians, braving the muggy Southern weather in MAGA gear, traded former hometowns like call signs and displayed placards — 'CA -> SC Refugees' and 'UHAUL Salesman of the YEAR' — while protesting Newsom's two morning stops in small towns nestled among rolling hills in the state's northwest corner. They were quick to mention favorite conservative talking points (gas prices, pandemic lockdowns, the French Laundry controversy) to reporters and Democrats walking in to see the governor. 'He's the governor there, yet he's here, what, running for president?' 49-year-old Brad Beach, a former school board member in Cerritos who moved to South Carolina last month, told Playbook. 'It's ridiculous. He should stay home and fix the problems there.' Newsom — who's used to being a conservative punching bag — brushed off the protests with a few cheeky remarks to 100 or so friendly attendees at both stops. 'I'm proud to be here in a county that probably doesn't overwhelmingly support some guy from California, is that about right? That's what I'm being told,' Newsom told the crowd at his first stop in Seneca, near the Georgia border. 'I mean, I can test the theory by walking the streets with you, but I don't know if you've got enough security.' — Tyler Katzenberger IN OTHER NEWS SPORTS SUIT: The Trump administration sued the state Department of Education today over a policy allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls' sports, repeating a threat to withhold billions of dollars in school funding over California's policy. The lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California, alleges that California's transgender athlete law violates Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans sex-based discrimination. It cites Newsom's comment earlier this year that it was 'deeply unfair' for transgender athletes to compete in girls sports. 'The Governor of California has previously admitted that it is 'deeply unfair' to force women and girls to compete with men and boys in competitive sports,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. 'But not only is it 'deeply unfair,' it is also illegal under federal law. This Department of Justice will continue its fight to protect equal opportunities for women and girls in sports.' A spokesperson for Newsom said that both the state's Department of Education and CIF are independent from his administration and are following state law. Newsom is not named as a party in the suit. 'No court has adopted the interpretation of Title IX that is being advanced by the federal government, and neither the Governor, nor they, get to wave a magic wand and override it — unlike Donald Trump, California follows the law,' spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement. X-ED OUT: Linda Yaccarino announced she is stepping down from her role as CEO of X in a post on the website today, our Aaron Pellish reports. 'After two incredible years, I've decided to step down as CEO of X,' she wrote. 'I'm incredibly proud of the X team - the historic business turn around we have accomplished together has been nothing short of remarkable.' The former NBC Universal executive joined X in 2023 shortly after Elon Musk took ownership of the social media platform. Musk and Yaccarino had spearheaded an initiative to totally remake the company — which was then known as Twitter — with the tech titan warning the platform was too 'woke.' Yaccarino praised the company and its owner in her post, and touted the features the company unveiled under her watch — including xAI. xAI is the engine behind its chatbot, Grok, which posted antisemitic content on X on Tuesday. But Yaccarino's resignation was unrelated to the Grok incident, according to a person familiar with her departure who was granted anonymity to speak freely. In response to her resignation post, Musk replied: 'Thank you for your contributions.' He has not yet indicated who would replace Yaccarino. WHAT WE'RE READING TODAY — A program that allows homeless people in Los Angeles County to earn gift cards each week they pass a drug test has gained traction in the region. (LAist) — State workers from a number of unions are approving tentative agreements after a monthslong battle to strike a deal. (Sacramento Bee) AROUND THE STATE — Los Angeles is on track to end 2025 with the lowest homicide total in almost 60 years, an LAPD tally shows. (Los Angeles Times) — San Diego has relaxed its first-in-the-nation mandate banning digital-only grocery coupons after facing pushback from grocery stores and business groups. (San Diego Union-Tribune) — A bishop in San Bernardino issued a decree exempting churchgoers from attending Sunday Mass amid heightened immigration enforcement in the region. (OC Register) — compiled by Juliann Ventura
Los Angeles Times
07-07-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
California's plan to ‘Make Polluters Pay' for climate change stalls again. Why oil companies are fiercely opposed
California lawmakers have for years vowed to hold fossil fuel companies liable for damages caused by their emissions, including worsening wildfires and floods and mounting costs of climate recovery and adaptation. But the state's so-called Climate Superfund bills have once again stalled in Sacramento amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure — leaving communities to cover the costs. The latest version of this effort, Senate Bill 684 and Assembly Bill 1243 — known as the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act — would require the largest oil and gas companies doing business in the state to pay their fair share of the damages caused by planet-warming greenhouse gases. The fees would be collected into a Superfund that would be put toward projects and programs to help the state mitigate, adapt and respond to climate change. The legislation gained momentum after its introduction by Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City) and Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) in the wake of January's devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, but neither made it out of its house of origin before sputtering out. Officials have confirmed to The Times that the legislation has been put on hold until next year. A similar bill introduced by Menjivar last year also failed to progress, clearing three committees before dying in Senate appropriations. New York and Vermont both passed their own versions of the legislation last year, but climate-conscious California continues to struggle to push its iteration over the finish line as deep-pocketed oil companies rally hard against it — and as the White House ramps up federal directives for more oil and gas. In the first quarter of this year alone, fossil fuel companies, chambers of commerce and other opponents spent at least $10.6 million lobbying against the Climate Superfund Act and other state legislation — more than 10 times the amount spent by environmental groups working to see it passed, according to an analysis of state filings. (Filings list all bills lobbied by an organization but do not break down how much was spent on each individual bill.) 'Any time you go up against Big Oil, it's a huge struggle,' Addis told The Times ahead of the bills' postponement. She said the state's strong climate record has made it a magnet for fossil fuel opposition. 'I really think they've turned everything toward California to try to slow us down.' The Climate Superfund Act is modeled after the federal Superfund law that requires companies to pay for the cleanup of contamination caused by their activities, such as hazardous waste disposal or accidents and spills. The state's proposed climate version would direct the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties — defined as oil companies responsible for more than 1 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions globally from 1990 to 2024 — within 90 days of enactment. The agency would have one year to conduct a comprehensive study to apportion damages to each polluter based on their emissions from that time period, which would be assessed as a one-time fee paid into a Superfund in annual installments. The funds collected from these companies would be earmarked for projects such as wildfire recovery, energy efficiency upgrades, community resilience infrastructure and other climate-related efforts. At least 40% of the money would be prioritized for disadvantaged communities, which suffer disproportionately from pollution and other environmental harms. Advocates say it's long overdue. 'This is a really big idea that makes a lot of sense,' said Maggie Coulter, senior attorney with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. 'When you make a mess, the people who made the mess should be the ones who clean it up. But right now what we're seeing is that taxpayers are the ones paying for all the myriad damages that are being caused by climate change, and by the pollution that's come from the burning of fossil fuels.' Fossil fuels account for about 75% of greenhouse gas emissions — the primary driver of global warming that is contributing to more frequent and destructive disasters such as wildfires, floods, droughts and extreme heat, as well as sea level rise and air pollution, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many other experts. Damages caused by these events include not only property loss but also rising healthcare and insurance costs, reduced productivity, increased emergency disaster response and costly infrastructure repairs, much of which is traditionally borne by the public. 'The consequences of climate change come with a huge price tag that is only increasing,' state Senate officials wrote in their analysis of the legislation. They noted that wildfires in California in 2020 caused economic losses of more than $19 billion. The cost of January's fires in L.A. alone is estimated to be $250 billion. 'With or without this bill, the costs of climate disaster recovery, adaptation, and mitigation will climb and must be paid,' the analysis says. 'The question then is, 'Paid by whom?'' Despite a groundswell of support for the legislation after the L.A. fires, the idea continues to face considerable opposition from oil industry groups, chambers of commerce and building and trade organizations that say it will kill jobs and drive up the cost of oil in the state. Among the top organizations spending against the bill in California were the Western States Petroleum Assn. — a large trade group representing fossil fuel companies — and the California Chamber of Commerce, which reported spending about $3.5 million and $1.2 million, respectively, on lobbying this quarter, state filings show. (Reporting is required for spends of $5,000 or more.) When asked about their concerns about the Climate Superfund Act, both groups deferred to a joint letter sent to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee in March, signed by about two dozen opposition groups. The legislation 'would impose retroactive liability on companies for lawful business activities dating back to 1990 and would introduce significant regulatory uncertainty that threatens California's economic stability and competitiveness,' the letter says. 'The significant financial obligations the bill would impose on alleged 'responsible parties' would likely worsen California's affordability crisis for the state's consumers and businesses as costs are passed down.' Western States Petroleum Assn. spokesman Jim Stanley also pointed to an analysis conducted by the California Center for Jobs & the Economy, which describes the legislation as a 'de facto carbon tax' that would ripple across goods, services and regional economies and create an annual household burden of up to $3,400. Specifically, the analysis says the legislation would contribute directly to a 43% increase in gasoline prices by 2027; eliminate 205,000 jobs statewide due to reduced consumer spending; and result in a $30.5-billion reduction in state GDP each year from 2027 to 2046, among other negative outcomes. Not everyone agreed with their assessment, however. Clair Brown, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley, has studied the Climate Superfund bill extensively and concluded that it would not increase gas prices in the state. That's because California's pump prices are primarily set by the global crude oil market, which is volatile, Brown said. What's more, she said major oil companies would continue to face market competition from smaller oil producers selling gas at branded and unbranded stations in the state, which limits the big companies' ability to raise retail gas prices without losing customers. A California law passed in 2023, Senate Bill X1-2, also prohibits refineries from passing along nonoperational costs — such as the Superfund fee — to consumers, she said. 'The public's been paying for part of the operational cost of refineries and oil and gas for decades, and meanwhile the oil and gas companies lied about the impact of their emissions on global warming,' Brown said. (Evidence has shown that the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change decades before acknowledging it publicly.) 'One of the reasons that economists really like this bill is that it would actually internalize the cost,' Brown said. 'Then we would actually see the real cost of fossil fuel energy — and it would help us transition hopefully faster and with more equity.' As for job loss, she said fossil fuel employment is affected not just by state demand but also by exports, which have been increasing in recent years. And while opponents argue that these companies have already been paying into the state's climate policies through cap-and-trade allowances and low carbon fuel standard credits, 'they don't overlap at all — they're totally different policies taxing different things,' Brown said. The legislation 'makes really good economic sense,' she added. It is not immediately clear to how many companies the Climate Superfund Act would even apply. According to Carbon Majors, a database of historical oil production data, there are about 130 global entities that produced over a billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions during the relevant time frame — only 26 of which operate in the United States. A comprehensive study ordered by the legislation would determine which companies are liable in the state, and for how much. For example, Chevron is associated with about 16.6 billion metric tons of historic global greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, while Marathon is associated with about 2 billion. It is also not immediately clear how much money it would raise. New York's Superfund bill has been valued at $75 billion over 25 years — though some analysts have said the number represents only a small fraction of that state's anticipated costs of climate adaptation in the years ahead, which could be well over $500 billion. California could potentially see an even bigger payout, in part because oil companies conduct so much activity here. But it's a double-edged sword, Brown said, because the heavy presence of those companies in the state is also why they've lobbied so hard against the legislation. Oil and gas made up about 6% of California's gross domestic product last year, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has championed California as a climate leader, has been mum about the bill. His team said the governor doesn't typically comment on pending legislation. 'If the measures reach his desk, the Governor will evaluate them on their merits,' his office said in an email. Meanwhile, Calif. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has launched a climate liability lawsuit against top oil companies that seeks to establish a fund to finance climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, not unlike the Superfund idea. Assemblymember Addis said pushing the legislation through in California has been an uphill battle. 'The oil industry pulled out all the stops here in California,' she said. Not only have fossil fuel companies spent millions in recent years to oppose oil and gas legislation, but 'they have a president in office now who has literally said 'drill baby drill' and gotten tens of millions of dollars, if not more, in campaign contributions' from the industry. Indeed, Trump received record donations from oil and gas interests during his 2024 presidential campaign, and has taken steps to remove regulations that govern the fossil fuel industry in an effort to 'unleash American energy' and increase oil and gas production. The Trump administration has also filed a lawsuit against New York and Vermont over their Climate Superfund bills, arguing they are unconstitutional. Despite the setbacks, Coulter, of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the legislation continues to maintain support because 'it has that gut instinct appeal, and it's something that there's huge need for — particularly in California,' where worsening climate disasters are meeting with reduced federal funding and a significant budget deficit. 'This is a really big idea that makes a lot of sense,' she said. She and other advocates noted that there is already precedent for the Climate Superfund Act in California. Since the 1990s, the state has implemented a law that assesses fees against producers of lead paint and leaded gas to help treat lead poisoning in children, known as the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act. The state's Department of Public Health collects the fee annually based on each company's market share responsibility for environmental lead contamination. 'It's become very much a part of the way to address these problems,' Coulter said. The concept also remains popular among some local governments, which are increasingly bearing the costs of climate catastrophe. The L.A. City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution in favor of the Climate Superfund Act. 'The City of Los Angeles should support the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 because it proposes to shift the burden of paying for the high costs of climate change recovery from California taxpayers to the businesses that have profited off the fossil fuel industry,' the resolution, introduced by Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, states. Though neither bill will move forward this year, both can be taken up in 2026, the second year of the current legislative session. Addis said she is hopeful that California will see its plan come to light. She recalled visiting constituents whose homes were flooded during 2023's devastating atmospheric rivers, which struck the state almost two years to the day before the L.A. wildfires. 'The real-life implications of these mega-weather events that are caused by the climate crisis, you can't turn your back on,' she said.
San Francisco Chronicle
03-07-2025
- General
- San Francisco Chronicle
California, four other Western states launch probe into underinsurance following Chronicle investigation
A coalition of five states is investigating underinsurance among wildfire survivors after years of costly megablazes across the West, most recently in Los Angeles, and in the wake of a San Francisco Chronicle investigation that laid bare the depth of the issue. The states' goals are to share data and explore the possibility of either a national law or state-based regulatory reforms to address underinsurance, Lara told the state Assembly Insurance Committee at a Wednesday hearing. The group includes representatives from New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon and Washington state. It will also explore what types of information regulators could collect from insurance companies to determine how many people might be underinsured. 'We are gathering data and building our understanding of insurance gaps and how to reduce the prevalence of policyholders being underinsured after severe fire, something that all these states and their consumers have experienced after their fires,' Lara said. Underinsurance refers to the phenomenon where a policyholder's coverage limit — the maximum amount their policy will pay out — falls short of the total cost of rebuilding their home. While some people may choose to underinsure their home, studies show most policyholders believe they are fully insured and want to be adequately covered in the event of a disaster that destroys their dwelling. The Chronicle's investigation found that, for decades, insurance companies have relied on faulty algorithms to estimate how much their customers' homes would cost to rebuild from the ground up, then used those flawed figures to set policy limits for their customers. The most common tool, 360Value, is used by insurers representing at least 40% of California policyholders as well as across the country. Millions of homeowners across California are likely underinsured due in large part to the widespread adoption of these tools, which insurance agents often over-rely on and do not fill out carefully, the Chronicle investigation found. The Chronicle also found that nearly every state in the coalition had identified widespread underinsurance following at least one wildfire. In Colorado, researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder estimated that three-quarters of Marshall Fire survivors were underinsured; more than a third of those had policies that were short by 25% or more. It is the fifth time Lara has appeared before the committee since his Sustainable Insurance Strategy, a package of reforms aimed at making insurance more available, was announced more than a year ago. Assembly Member Dawn Addis, citing the Chronicle's reporting, asked Lara how he would make certain that insurance was both available and sufficient to protect policyholders against disaster. 'My big concern around underinsurance is right now we're having the very important conversation around can people get insurance or not. My big fear, and what I've heard from folks on the Central Coast is, I can get insurance but it's simply not enough insurance,' Addis told Lara. "That's part of our investigation,' Lara replied. He encouraged any consumers who have found out they're underinsured to submit a complaint to the California Department of Insurance to be used in the investigation. In response to the Chronicle's findings, California also began collaborating with researchers with the RAND Corporation and Ken Klein, a professor of law at California Western School of Law, to explore what data could be used to study underinsurance. After the hearing, Addis told the Chronicle she is encouraged to hear multiple states are looking into the issue but also concerned at how widespread underinsurance is across the West. 'To me it's a compelling reason to bring statewide legislation forward, the sooner the better. We know we're going to have more disasters. It's a piece we absolutely need to have our arms wrapped around as we try to stabilize the market,' Addis said. The coalition's formation is the latest in a series of actions taken in response to the Chronicle's reporting on underinsurance. In May, the California Board of Equalization — the state's agency tasked with property tax oversight — held an informational hearing into underinsurance inspired by the Chronicle's investigation. It then issued a slate of recommendations for potential regulatory or legislative action, including requiring insurance companies to provide stronger warnings to customers that their recommended coverage limits may not fully cover the cost of rebuilding. Plaintiffs attorneys have also filed major lawsuits against at least four insurance companies on behalf of underinsured policyholders in Altadena and Pacific Palisades. Many of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits had homeowners' policies that underestimated their rebuilding costs by $1 million or more. Lara said members of the nascent coalition had been meeting for several months prior to the announcement.
The Intercept
28-04-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
Dems Push for 'Educational Gag Order' Over Palestine Lessons in California
For years, California Democrats have defended their landmark program to put ethnic studies classes in high schools across the state. In the face of national right-wing media attacks and local critics, the state's governing supermajority passed a law in 2021 making ethnic studies a graduation requirement, which supports school boards to develop their own curricula for the courses. But one particular area of study threatens to unravel the Democratic consensus: Palestine. In the past year, state lawmakers have teamed up with community groups and the lobbying coalition Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, or JPAC, in a push to regulate the ethnic studies program. They're aiming to pass a law that curbs local school board control over ethnic studies curricula in response to classwork focusing on the history of Israel and Palestine that they say has promoted unprecedented bigotry against Jewish students. The bill's backers are framing the effort as a way to ensure that ethnic studies 'will combat all forms of hate,' as one of the bill's authors, Assemblymember Dawn Addis, wrote in a March 30 op-ed. 'At a time when the federal government is trying to rewrite American history by banning diversity initiatives, California must persist in elevating the lived experiences of everyone in this country,' wrote Addis, whose office did not respond to inquiries from The Intercept. But as right-wing groups oppose the bill and ethnic studies more broadly, a coalition of critics warn that the new controls could lead to the same type of state censorship in schools that has been put into law in conservative states like Texas and Florida. 'This language goes far beyond supporting culturally-responsive education in a general sense, and echoes educational gag order legislation we've seen in other states nationwide,' said PEN America spokesperson Suzanne Trimel in a statement. 'This could result in state officials forcing a school or educator to pull certain materials they believe aren't 'fair' or don't provide enough variety of perspective, concepts that are difficult to define.' Assembly Bill 1468 introduced in February, would create new state standards for the ethnic studies classes that California schools must offer by the beginning of this coming school year. The discipline has its roots in California's college student strikes of the 1960s and was codified into state education law after years of deliberation in 2021. In that legislative process, teachers and scholars advocating for a more explicitly anti-imperialist approach in line with its radical origins lost out: Lessons on Palestine were excised from the law before it passed, and the left wing of the ethnic studies movement was sidelined from the process. But still, the law required schools to begin offering an ethnic studies course by the fall of 2025, and schools teaching the course had the choice to develop curricula on their own, working with consultants and local communities or drawing upon guidance from the state. Under the new law, standards will be written by a panel of academic experts in a specific subset of disciplines — African American studies, Latinx/Chicanx studies, Asian American/Pacific Islander studies, and Native American studies — with additional input from representatives of communities most frequently impacted by hate crimes according to state law enforcement. The bill's author has also promised more 'traditional' scholars will be chosen by the governor. The state's current model curriculum on human rights and genocide, within the history and social science category, briefly characterizes the Nakba as an event in which 'Palestinians left Palestine.' The California Department of Education would also receive all materials approved by local districts by 2026 and post their curricula online, with an eye for avoiding 'abstract ideological theories' and focusing on the 'domestic experience.' On a call in March, the bill's backers gathered on a webinar to discuss the game plan. State Sen. Josh Becker, a Silicon Valley Democrat co-authoring the bill, said the bill 'doesn't ban anything.' He told the audience that his 12th-grade son received a presentation in an ethnic studies class that had a puppeteer's hand holding strings and said, 'Israel is a country created on Palestinian land. The United Nations says this is illegal.' 'We all knew the U.N. created Israel, and there was no Palestine before that, and Gaza was controlled by Egypt,' Becker said, in remarks that were cut from the final video posted on Youtube. 'And we all know the history, this was not that.' Becker's office did not respond to requests for comment, but he later posted on social media on the comments: 'I don't mean and haven't meant to say or imply anything minimizing the Palestinian connection to the land.' David Bocarsly, executive director of JPAC, explained to hundreds of listeners why he saw a new state law as a necessary step. 'District-by-district outreach became a game of whack-a-mole, and we knew that we needed a statewide solution,' he said. Part of PEN America's criticism is that A.B. 1468's compliance provisions take a 'one-size-fits all approach to education' that 'could amount to educational intimidation.' But a large segment of California's Democratic establishment is lining up behind this bill. Thirty-one state Democrats, including all but one member of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, have already signed on as co-authors of the bill. The state superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond, who plans to run for governor in 2026, has endorsed an earlier version of the bill that was held by the author in an August committee hearing. And his office recently investigated a San Jose ethnic studies teacher, finding that they violated Jewish students' rights by failing to intervene with another perspective during a student project on genocide with a slide titled 'Genocide of Palestinians.' (The investigation notes no students complained, and the district told The Intercept it will be responding to the state's findings.) Two candidates running to replace Thurmond in 2026 have also indicated support for JPAC's efforts on ethnic studies. One of them, Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, chairs the committee where the bill will face its first hearing. His office did not respond to questions from The Intercept. The current movement to clamp down on teaching Palestine in ethnic studies curriculum coalesced around a story out of Orange County. The Santa Ana Unified School District, adjacent to one of the nation's largest Arab American communities, approved two world history ethnic studies courses in April 2023 that briefly taught about Israel and Palestine, including content about the Nakba and settlements. After pro-Israel organizations objected, the district's superintendent vowed not to remove any group's narrative in May 2023. But in September of that year, an Anti-Defamation League-backed coalition sued on procedural grounds. During the messy litigation, lawyers pressed district staff and board members for their thoughts on Zionism and Hamas, and in August 2024, they uncovered text messages indicating senior district officials sought to avoid scrutiny by passing courses on a Jewish holiday. Two congressional Republicans subsequently called for the district to undergo a federal investigation. District leaders, meanwhile, responded by shelving the contested courses as part of a February 2025 settlement, inviting the litigants to provide input to the course process while denying claims of discrimination. The agreement also promises not to include several references to the oppression of Palestinians from a book about ethnic cleansing by a British sociologist. A few days after the Santa Ana settlement, A.B. 1468 was introduced in the California legislature, and JPAC published five examples of what it called 'examples of antisemitism and harmful rhetoric' in ethnic studies classrooms. But JPAC didn't provide any sources for their claims, and in some situations it's unclear exactly to which materials they are referring. Bocarsly, the executive director of JPAC, did not respond to requests for comment or more information on the list. JPAC included the Fort Bragg Unified School District on the list for its lesson with a map of Palestinian dispossession and land loss. Superintendent Joseph Aldridge said that he first learned of JPAC's allegation from The Intercept and is now removing the lesson from the unit, which has not yet been taught and also includes a lesson on Middle Eastern Jewish communities. Aldridge said that he wished that JPAC had gotten in touch to discuss the issue before putting the district on the list. 'I was a little disappointed to see our district's name out there without at least some chance to have a conversation about it,' he said. A spokesperson for another district on the JPAC list, San Francisco Unified, responded 'we are looking into this,' when contacted by The Intercept. Following up, its spokesperson later said that the district was in alignment with state law. Maria Su, the district's superintendent, did not respond to inquiries. Janet Schulze, the superintendent of Pittsburg Unified School District, told The Intercept she was 'very surprised and puzzled' to see JPAC's claim that the district used a biased definition of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement in its course, and said that they had been working with the curriculum consulting firm Community Responsive Education for years. 'We have not received any negative feedback or reports of anti-semitism from our community regarding this course or any of the other courses we have that meet the Ethnic Studies requirement,' she said in a statement. A representative from the national pro-Israel group StandWithUS, a member of JPAC's coalition, did however criticize the contract with Community Responsive Education in a 2024 school board meeting. The push to clamp down on ethnic studies curricula picked up political momentum in the wake of the October 7 attacks in Israel and the subsequent anti-war movement in the U.S., but one of the bill's authors has made it clear that the fight stretches back to the late 2010s. Los Angeles Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur has called opponents to A.B. 1468 advocates who have been 'peddling' radical curricula to school districts. 'They have a big presence in the Cal State system, they're organized, there are liberated ethnic studies adherents within the teachers unions,' he warned listeners on the JPAC webinar in March. His office declined an interview request and did not respond to questions from The Intercept. After losing out in the legislative wrangling over the original ethnic studies bill, the spurned left wing of the expert body convened by the state Department of Education created a consulting firm in 2020 called the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, with the goal of helping school districts interested in the more radical vision of the discipline construct their courses. The group has been in the crosshairs since, while similar firms and coalitions have popped up nationwide. A federal judge in November threw out a lawsuit alleging that LESMCC covertly spreads antisemitism and bias throughout Los Angeles and California schools, writing in his decision, 'It would be of great concern for the educational project and for academic freedom if every offended party could sue every time they did not like a curriculum or the way it was taught.' The case is being appealed. None of the districts cited by JPAC have contracts with the group, though CRE, which works with the Pittsburg district, was co-founded by Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, an Asian American studies professor at San Francisco State University who is on the LESMCC leadership team. Theresa Montaño, an LESMCC founder and California State University, Northridge professor of Chicano/a studies, said that lawmakers 'seem to want to label' all the material they dislike as 'liberated ethnic studies.' She said that school districts and teachers choose to work with her group's teacher training or classroom materials of their own volition. What they choose to teach 'is their sentiment, and it's the sentiment of a lot of their students,' Montaño said. But she noted that her group is just a small part of a larger movement in education, and many districts arrive at curricula that some consider controversial on their own. 'When you're engaged in a movement, it's organic, it's dynamic, it's ever changing, it's created from the grassroots up,' she said. 'Nobody controls that movement, not liberated ethnic studies, not community responsive education, not any consulting group around ethnic studies.' Opposition to CRE's work in the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, which covers a majority Latino farm area south of Santa Cruz, sparked a year-and-a-half long fight over whether to renew the group's contract. That came to a close just last week, when the board voted to renew the CRE contract on the grounds that they found no antisemitism in the actual curriculum. But the ADL California and StandWithUs have continued to push back, demanding school board members apologize for statements that they say drew on antisemitic tropes, which drew an official warning from the superintendent of Santa Cruz County Schools. Other small, diverse California communities are speaking out against the new bill. Cudahy, a 96 percent Hispanic city of just 21,000 in Los Angeles County, unanimously passed an April 15 resolution saying the bill 'undermines local control.' 'This is clearly a way to manipulate the narrative of the genocide in Palestine. If we read the language of the text of the bill, it's pretty evident,' said Councilmember Daisy Lomeli at the meeting. Though some are reevaluating their courses, hundreds of California districts are moving forward with the ethnic studies program in the face of significant political pressure, and without the over $200 million in funding the state estimated was necessary for developing their classes. The bill is set to be heard on April 30 in the Assembly Education Committee in what is expected to be a lively hearing, unless lawmakers vote to extend the deadline in advance. 'Those pushing to inject harmful content into our classrooms are loud,' reads one message from JPAC to supporters. 'We need to be louder.'
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Jersey among states that want to make oil companies pay for climate disasters
The aftermath of a tornado from Hurricane Ida in Mullica Hill on September 2, 2021. New Jersey is among the states considering bills that would force fossil fuel companies to pay recovery costs for climate disasters. (Photo by Daniella Heminghaus for New Jersey Monitor) For many California residents, the Los Angeles wildfires earlier this year were the latest and most searing example of the devastating effects of climate change. Some estimates have pegged the damages and economic losses from the fires at more than $250 billion. 'We've had disaster after disaster after disaster,' said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat. 'It's the taxpayers and the insurance ratepayers that are bearing the cost. It's not sustainable, it's not right and it's not ethical.' Addis and Democratic lawmakers in nearly a dozen other states want to force the world's largest fossil fuel companies to help pay for the recovery costs of climate-related disasters. Last year, Vermont became the first state to pass a 'climate Superfund' law, followed soon after by New York. This session, 10 states have seen similar proposals, several of which have advanced in key committees. Advocates point to legislation in Maryland that has drawn support in both chambers, as well as to strong grassroots support in California after the Los Angeles wildfires. Lawmakers say the rapidly increasing cost of climate disasters — from wildfires to floods to sea level rise — is more than state budgets can bear. 'Climate Superfund is the 'it girl' policy of the [2025] session,' said Ava Gallo, climate and energy program manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. 'There's a lot of popularity in the idea of holding polluters responsible.' The momentum for these 'polluter pays' bills is tied to the maturation of attribution science. That new field of research can help calculate fossil fuel companies' contributions to historic emissions totals, as well as the role climate change played in causing or worsening natural disasters. Vermont's law was the first attempt to use that science to charge emitters for their role in causing devastating floods and other catastrophes. We've had disaster after disaster after disaster. It's the taxpayers and the insurance ratepayers that are bearing the cost. It's not sustainable, it's not right and it's not ethical. – California Democratic Assemblymember Dawn Addis Fossil fuel companies and their allies have fought back hard. Late last year, the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging Vermont's measure. The groups argue that emissions are governed by the federal Clean Air Act, precluding states from charging companies over global pollution. Neither group responded to a Stateline interview request. The Independent Petroleum Association of America also declined an interview request. A separate lawsuit, led by 22 Republican attorneys general, is challenging the New York law. And a conservative group has targeted Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, who helped draft the legal justification for climate Superfund policy. The group, Government Accountability and Oversight, has sought to subject Rothschild to a deposition, The New York Times reported, a move that some experts view as an intimidation tactic. Meanwhile, oil and gas executives asked President Donald Trump during a White House meeting this month to direct the Justice Department to join the legal fight against climate Superfund laws, The Wall Street Journal reported. Industry leaders are also pushing Congress to shield them from more than 30 lawsuits brought by state and local governments that aim to make them pay for some of the results of climate change. While experts expect a bruising legal battle over climate Superfund policies, the threat of lawsuits hasn't deterred more lawmakers from backing the concept. 'States were a little bit wary; they wondered, 'Is this some new radical plan?'' said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director with the Make Polluters Pay campaign, a coalition of groups backing such bills. 'Then one of the littlest states passed it and this powerhouse, New York, passed it. That really set the ball rolling.' Fossil fuel companies have cast doubt on attribution science. They also note that their production of oil and other products was done legally under U.S. and international regulations. 'Manufacturers will see this as a shakedown of any industry you don't like at some point in the future, even though in the past they were licensed and operated under government regulation,' Brett Vassey, president and CEO of the Virginia Manufacturers Association, said during legislative testimony about a climate Superfund proposal in that state. 'It will have a chilling effect on Virginia being able to grow its economy.' Proponents of Superfund legislation point to legal settlements with large tobacco companies in the 1990s. Although those companies also sold their products legally, they were held responsible because they knew about the harmful effects of those products and deceived the public. Most climate Superfund proposals target companies for their emissions over the past 30 or so years, after leading experts had documented the dangers of greenhouse gases. 'There's good documentation of how well the fossil fuel industry knew the probable long-term impacts of their product,' said Oregon state Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat. 'Should an industry that made such historic profits over a period of time and made so many representations that we had no problem not bear any of the costs?' Golden and other lawmakers say it's becoming impossible for taxpayers to cover the costs of recovery from wildfires and other catastrophes. In Rhode Island, sea level rise is causing massive damage for coastal communities, said Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Boylan, who has sponsored a climate Superfund bill to help the state adapt. Some advocates also note that Trump's return to the White House has cut off the possibility of federal climate relief. 'All the states are affected by the disappearance of this federal funding,' said Gallo, of the state lawmakers group. 'States everywhere are going to be looking at some way to fill the gap.' This session, climate Superfund bills have been introduced in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia. While the bills are structured differently, they all seek to target the largest polluters — often covering companies that produced 1 billion metric tons of emissions over the last 30 or so years. Lawmakers say that applies to roughly 100 companies. The measures also take different approaches to assigning damages. Some direct state agencies to conduct complex studies to determine the costs of climate-caused disasters over a certain period, the approach pioneered by Vermont. Others set a fixed number that represents a conservative baseline for those damages. New York's law set that figure at $75 billion over a 25-year period. Many of the bills also require that significant amounts of the funding be directed to the communities hit hardest by pollution. Advocates are particularly optimistic about the measures in California and Maryland. Lawmakers in Maryland modified their bills to commission a study about the financial impacts of climate change. Those measures passed both the House and Senate, and legislators are working to reconcile the versions from each chamber. Figures produced by the study would be the backbone of a climate Superfund policy in a future session. 'From a legislative perspective, it's a shot in the dark as to what the costs are,' said Democratic Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo, who sponsored one of the bills. 'This will give us the factual data needed to make a more well-educated decision on policy.' In New Jersey, an Assembly committee advanced a climate Superfund bill this month. State Sen. Bob Smith, a Democrat who chairs the Environment and Energy Committee and who sponsored the bill, said it will help to rebuild and fortify water treatment plants, schools and firehouses. He noted that Trump has called for the dismantling of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 'The end of the world is coming; it's kind of hard to ignore,' Smith said. 'FEMA has been the backstop to help communities recover from disasters. If the handwriting isn't on the wall to all the states that they've got to deal with this, shame on them.' Lawmakers in many states have heard from mayors and other local government leaders that more climate recovery funding is essential. 'Municipal officials are getting behind [climate Superfund policies],' said Massachusetts state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, a Democrat who has sponsored similar legislation. 'They're facing the costs of flooding, of droughts, of heat waves, and really asking for relief.' Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@ Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@
