Another resident replied at https://pastebin.com/KD1ZUXVz. Below is the content.

The response from resident James not only lacks proper nuance, but is evidence of the lack of education relating to this subject.

Yes, trans people do represent a small portion of the population. But in the real world, chances are, more likely than not, that your child will interact with a person who identifies as such. Exposing this topic to them so they have a better understanding of the world around them is crucial for their success as they grow up.

Characterizing the increased visibility of transgender people as a 'social contagion' fundamentally misunderstands what we're observing. Consider the following analogy: Imagine if left-handedness was stigmatized and forcibly suppressed. In this situation, left-handed people didn't cease to exist—they simply hid their natural inclination. As society's acceptance grew, the recorded number of left-handed people rose dramatically, not because being left-handed was 'contagious,' but because people finally felt safe being themselves. By the time acceptance was widespread, the percentage of left-handed people stabilized at its natural rate of about 10%.
What may look like a 'sudden increase' to some is actually the unveiling of what was always present, just hidden from view. We aren't seeing more transgender people being created—we're seeing more transgender people who feel safe enough to live authentically.

The last claim is just straight up moronic. Bathroom signs are not stopping rapists and perverts. Please cite sources when making claims as bold as “rapes are clearly correlated with trans women using the women’s bathroom”.

In response to Texas’s 2025 mid-decade redistricting plan, which aims to add five Republican-leaning congressional seats, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed Proposition 50 to redraw California’s congressional districts to favor Democrats, offsetting potential losses in Congress. This proposal, driven by the Democratic supermajority in the state legislature, seeks to temporarily transfer redistricting authority from the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) to the legislature for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections.

Legal Context and Constitutional Changes

Under the California Constitution, the CRC, an independent 14-member body established by Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010), is responsible for redrawing congressional and state legislative districts every decade following the federal census. Mid-decade redistricting is prohibited unless ordered by a court, as clarified in Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983). To enable Proposition 50, two constitutional amendments are proposed:

1. Transferring redistricting power from the CRC to the state legislature for congressional maps until 2030.
2. Allowing mid-decade redistricting without a court order.

The state Assembly and Senate passed these amendments with a two-thirds supermajority in August 2025. Proposition 50 now requires approval by more than 50% of California voters in a special election on November 4, 2025, to take effect.

Controversy and Public Response

Proposition 50 has sparked significant debate. Supporters, including Governor Newsom, argue it’s a necessary countermeasure to Texas’s redistricting, which passed the Texas House on August 20, 2025, to strengthen Republican control of Congress. They view it as protecting California’s interests in a national “redistricting war.” Opponents, including the California Republican Party and former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, contend it undermines the CRC’s nonpartisan process, risking partisan gerrymandering and eroding voter trust.

A recent controversy involved a flyer from the Voters First Act, which quoted the League of Women Voters of California’s president opposing mid-decade redistricting. The League distanced itself from the flyer on its website but reaffirmed its opposition to mid-decade redistricting, advocating for independent and transparent redistricting processes.

Implications for California

Proposition 50 could reshape California’s congressional representation, potentially affecting federal funding and policies that impact education, including in districts like Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). With 45% of California children having at least one immigrant parent, fair representation is critical for communities with diverse needs. The outcome of the November 4, 2025, election will determine whether California adopts this unprecedented mid-decade redistricting approach.

Equity Grading in schools.

In June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction in Mahmoud v. Taylor, affirming parents' rights to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed instructional materials in schools, citing the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause. This ruling applies nationwide, impacting all U.S. school districts, including the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD).

Implications for CUSD

The decision requires CUSD to take specific actions to comply with federal law and respect parental rights:

• Develop clear opt-out processes for parents to exempt their children from LGBTQ-related materials
• Provide teacher training and guidelines on handling LGBTQ-themed content sensitively and compliance with the ruling
• Review board policies to ensure alignment with the Supreme Court's decision and other legal requirements

In CUSD, the Opening Day Packet includes language below in E.8 under Curriculum and Instruction:

Community Concerns and Context

Before my election to the CUSD board, some parents raised concerns at board meetings about the use of LGBTQ-related books and content in classrooms. The Mahmoud v. Taylor ruling, grounded in religious freedom, highlights the need to examine not only LGBTQ content but also other materials that may conflict with religious beliefs. For example, the Santa Clara County Office of Education recently encouraged schools to display posters promoting inclusivity, which some view as conflicting with certain religious values.

Balancing Inclusion and Religious Sensitivities

The Supreme Court's decision prompts us to consider educational content that may intersect with religious beliefs. Potential areas of concern include:

• Stories featuring animals considered impure in some faiths (e.g. Peppa Pig for some Muslims)
• Evolution theory in science curricula, which may conflict with literal interpretations in some Christian or Islamic traditions
• Lessons on gender identity or LGBTQ+ issues, which may raise concerns for some religious families
• Celebrations of holidays like Halloween or Christmas, potentially seen as non-inclusive by many families.
• Literature involving magic, such as Harry Potter, which some religious groups associate with occult practices
• Activities involving non-kosher foods, which may conflict with Jewish dietary laws
• Historical discussions, like the mistreatment of Alan Turing, a renowned mathematician and computer scientist, for his homosexuality, which may spark debate in some religious communities
• Science lessons asserting the Earth is round, which may conflict with rare flat Earth beliefs
• Lessons on the science of electronics, which may be sensitive for communities like the Amish who limit technology use to preserve religious values

Opt-In or Opt-Out

CUSD plans to include an opt-out form in the Opening Day Packet, allowing parents to exempt their children from LGBTQ-themed instructional materials. If parents fail to return the form, their children will participate in this instruction.

In contrast, the Howell Mountain School District in Napa County is considering an opt-in form. If parents do not return the opt-in form, their children will not participate in LGBTQ-themed instruction.

What are your thoughts on the best approach for CUSD?

Fostering a Sense of Belonging

At CUSD, creating a sense of belonging for all students is a priority. How do we balance inclusivity with respect for diverse religious and cultural values? The Mahmoud v. Taylor ruling invites us to explore this question, ensuring every student and family feels respected while maintaining high-quality education.

"I know from personal experience that colleges rank school systems as well as individuals. High grades from ‘equity’ schools would be down-graded by competitive colleges when evaluating applications, making it harder for high achievers to compete. This would defeat the alleged purpose."

In May 2025, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) superintendent proposed an equity grading system for 14 high schools, bypassing school board approval. After swift backlash, the plan was canceled, but it raises questions about grading fairness and educational quality.

What Is Equity Grading?

The proposed system aimed to simplify grading and reduce disparities. Key features included:

• Wider grade ranges: On a 100-point scale, grades were assigned every 20 points (e.g., 80+ for A, 60–79 for B, 40–59 for C, 20–39 for D, below 20 for F), compared to traditional 10-point increments (90+ for A, 80–89 for B, etc.).
• Final exam focus: Grades depended solely on a final exam, which students could retake multiple times, excluding factors like homework or attendance.

Proponents argued this would reduce stress and promote equity by leveling the playing field. Critics, however, warned it could inflate grades and lower academic rigor.

Impact on Students and College Admissions

Equity grading could significantly boost students’ Grade Point Averages (GPAs), a critical factor in college admissions, especially in California, where the University of California system no longer considers SAT or ACT scores. Higher GPAs might give SFUSD students an edge, but colleges could adjust evaluations if grade inflation is widespread. How would this reshape admissions fairness?

Does Equity Grading Support Quality Education?

As a CUSD board member, I believe our district’s primary goal is to provide high-quality education. Critics of SFUSD’s equity grading argue it may prioritize equal outcomes over academic mastery, potentially undermining rigor. Supporters counter that it addresses systemic barriers, enabling more students to succeed. This debate prompts us to examine what “equity” means in education and whether it aligns with delivering excellence.

Relevance to CUSD

In the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD), we prioritize personalized learning, offering differentiated pathways like math tracking in middle school. SFUSD’s proposal encourages us to reflect: Should we consider alternative grading models, or continue emphasizing tailored education?

On January 21, 2025, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) board voted 3-2 to merge its 9th-grade Biology Honors and standard biology courses into a single curriculum, a process known as de-tracking. This decision has ignited significant debate, drawing both local and national attention.

A Push for Equity

PAUSD cited equity as a key rationale for the change. By offering one biology course, the district aims to “reduce stigma and labels” and foster “inclusion and diversity,” ensuring all students receive the same foundational education. Supporters argue this approach promotes fairness and equal opportunities for learning.

Criticism and Concerns

The decision has faced pushback. Local U.S. Representative Ro Khanna called it “absurd” and an “assault on excellence,” arguing that eliminating honors courses could undermine academic rigor for high-achieving students. Critics question whether a unified curriculum can meet the diverse needs of all learners without compromising advanced instruction.

Some comments from the survey:

• DEI has been misused to penalize Aisian and Indian kids. DEI focusses only on race and never looks at diversity of ideas and financial situation
• Democratic party uses race baiting to win election. DEI is not helping but hindering progress of Blacks and Latinos
• DEI is important. white people have built-in advantages in this society and we need to do as much as possible to level the playing field. this might feel unfair now but it is how we can root out privilege.
• DEI is absolutely essential to ensure diversity in workplaces. Its important that thoughts are ideas are shared from different backgrounds to ensure great/universsaly acceptable products
• DEI, such as race or gender equality has gone way too far. It is pushing competent people out. At this time, it is best NOT to have DEI, because it is really confusing and unfair to implement.
• This is social engineering. emphasizing representation at enxpense of merit is a bad idea and will lead to erosion of quality. I belong to the medical field and merit trumps all. Insufficient skills or abilities is dangerous to patient care.
• Abolish DEI. It’s discriminatory
• I think there needs to be a balanced approach to everything rather than a strict all or nothing interpretation.
• My belief is that balancing merit-based policies with other “community “ factors allows for a more well rounded educational community that more closely resembles our full society.
• merit-based is the only fair and honest method
• DEI policies are an indication that Americans need more open but respectful discussions about our common civil society and NOT social justice initiatives enacted by businesses or educational institutions.
• DEI is necessary and allows for a better representation of race, gender, ethnicities and backgrounds in the candidate pool whether it comes to colleges or workplaces. My own college and workplace experience has been a lot more fulfilling due to the diversity of people I have had a chance to study and work with.
• I find the backlash against DEI initiative morally reprehensible. They appear to stem from the flawed idea that everyone had the same opportunities in this country, when the data clearly shows that not to be true.
• DEI initiatives are unconstitutional & racist. When merit (ability) matters, there can be no justification for using criteria other than ability. Nobody wants to get on a plane piloted by a pilot who was hired for any reason other than being the best pilot. Nobody wants to drive a car designed by an engineer who was qualified by their race rather than by their car engineering ability. There is simply no justification for race conscious policies in any situation where the required criterion is merit.
• In my opinion, any privileges based on race, nationality, sex, religion are discriminatory and racist in nature and should be considered extremely harmful to our society and should be prohibited at the federal level. Any DEI program is dangerous to our society. All people are equal and no one should receive any advantages because of the color of their skin or sex.
• You are obviously engaging in bad faith. I am embarrassed by your inclusion on the school board.
• Teach common sense in school. Not political crap like DEI.
• Equity should be established early in education by helping students and families succeed in their education and not at the time of College admission or job hiring where merit should be the only consideration.
• DEI initiatives are vague and ill-defined. I've seen them rolled out at work, and they were top-down. There was no organic problem they were solving. Rather, after George Floyd in 2020, every institution started DEI to virtue signal. In my experience, DEI appears to serve as cover for institutions to discriminate by race/sex/etc. while denying they're doing so. The effort to bring these "initiatives" to schools, especially with young kids, is completely age-inappropriate indoctrination.
• Instead of using race or ethnicity the system should use economic-hardship and help those people who come from hard economic circumstances instead of helping people based on color of their skin or ethnicity or religion.

In a recent directive, the Trump Administration has mandated that all U.S. schools and universities eliminate their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, threatening the loss of federal funding for noncompliance. Additionally, the administration has launched investigations into the admissions policies of Stanford University, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Irvine, targeting what it describes as "race-based preferences" in an effort to enforce anti-DEI policies.

What is DEI?

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These initiatives aim to promote opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups by addressing systemic barriers in education, employment, and other sectors. Proponents argue that DEI fosters fairness and broadens access, while critics contend that it can lead to preferential treatment for some groups and disadvantage others.

DEI and California Law

California’s stance on race and equity in public institutions is shaped by Proposition 209, passed in 1996. This measure amended the state constitution to prohibit public entities—including schools, universities, and government agencies—from considering race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, contracting, and education. In 2020, Proposition 16 sought to repeal Prop 209 and restore the ability to use such factors, but voters rejected it. As a result, California’s public institutions remain legally barred from implementing race-, sex-, or ethnicity-based preferences.

The Trump Administration’s recent investigations into Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Irvine signal a determined effort to uncover whether these universities are quietly defying California’s strict ban on race-based preferences in admissions. Despite the state constitution—via Proposition 209—explicitly prohibiting such practices, the administration suspects these institutions may be secretly favoring certain racial groups, and it has threatened to cut federal funding if evidence of these hidden “race-based preferences” comes to light.

Cupertino Union School District’s Position

The Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) does not currently operate formal DEI programs. Given this, and California’s existing legal framework under Prop 209, CUSD appears unlikely to be directly impacted by the administration’s anti-DEI measures or funding threats.

DEI in College Admissions and Workplace Hiring

The debate over DEI extends to college admissions and workplace hiring, where DEI initiatives can sometimes conflict with purely merit-based approaches. DEI-focused policies often aim to balance representation across factors like gender, race, or other identities, emphasizing systemic equity. In contrast, merit-based systems prioritize individual qualifications, such as academic achievements or professional skills, without regard to demographic characteristics. Both approaches spark discussion: DEI advocates highlight the need to address historical inequities, while merit-based proponents argue for evaluating candidates solely on their abilities.

These approaches reflect distinct philosophies. DEI policies often group individuals by identity categories to achieve balanced representation across diverse groups. Merit-based policies, however, focus on treating each candidate as an individual, emphasizing their unique qualifications and contributions without reference to group identity. Both perspectives fuel ongoing discussions about fairness, opportunity, and the best path to equitable outcomes.

Cupertino Mayor Liang Chao made comment below in WhatsApp.

In my opinion, it’s a bit misleading to attribute the transition to district based election to potential attorney letters. As you might have known, FUHSD Board just decided to transition because some people were pushing for it.

The intent of CVRA was that in case there is racialized voting (people voting according to racial lines), district based election might help minorities, assuming that minorities concentrate in one district.

But that’s not the case for a racially diverse area like Silicon Valley. People here don’t congregate by race in where they live.

Splitting FUHSD into 5 districts, in fact, split up Chinese votes since there is not enough Chinese votes in any one district, similarly to ethnic groups.

Chinese voters might not all support Chinese candidates but they might support candidates who share their values on education. Splitting them up into districts, splitting up their voting power.