Today the ACLU of Southern California filed suit in federal court against the Belridge School District, a public school district near Bakersfield, in Kern County, California, challenging the constitutionality of the use of textbooks that convey a particular religious perspective on a wide range of classroom subjects, and that are replete with verbatim biblical passages and prayers for students to read. The suit also challenges the display of a banner on the walls of the Belridge School cafeteria that sets forth a Psalm.

The lead plaintiffs in the suit are Veronica Van Ry, a single mother, and her twelve-year- old daughter, Rita Elliott. Rita, who is about to begin the eighth grade, has attended Belridge School since the fourth grade and had hoped to graduate from the eight grade there this year. Ms. Van Ry thought it vital for her daughter to remain at Belridge, and so she received a transfer to enable Rita to continue at Belridge even though they now live in another school district. At the same time, however, Ms. Van Ry was deeply concerned that the Belridge School had adopted a new curriculum with religious textbooks at its core for the 1999-2000 school year. In the end, Ms. Van Ry decided that she simply could not stand idle and permit the school district to teach out of religious textbooks; thus she removed Rita from Belridge before the new school year began on August 23. "It is not the place for public schools to teach religious tenets to students. The constitution leaves that job to parents and children together, in their homes and in their houses of worship," said Ms. Van Ry.

A Beka Book, Inc., the publisher of the textbooks that the school district is using for instruction in kindergarten through the eighth grade at Belridge School, is, in the company's own words,"unashamedly Christian and traditional in its approach to education." Its stated mission is to "build the content of every textbook on the foundation of God's Word." That mission is plainly reflected in the pages of its textbooks.

For example, the introduction to A Beka's third-grade American history textbooks states :

Throughout the history of America, God has heard the prayers of those who love him and their country. The names of many of these praying Christians are not written in history books, but their prayers were heard by God.

Likewise, in an exercise that lists ten sentences or sentence fragments, the third-grade English textbook includes the following:

2. Noah built an ark for God.

7. Jesus loves children.

Similar themes resonate in A Beka's eighth-grade history text. The A Beka website states that, in this book, "[t]hrough the story of America's rise to greatness, students will learn to recognize the hand of God in history and to appreciate the influence of Christianity in the government, economics, and society." The website also states that "biblical principles" are employed to teach mathematics to seventh-graders, and that "[u]nlike secular grammar books," A Beka's eighth- grade grammar text emphasizes "Christian" principles.

The use of A Beka textbooks is entirely consistent with the stated mission of the Belridge School District, which is said to be based on the principle of "honor[ing] God" . a principle that the website says "can only be accomplished through a unified effort between families, school, and God." The school district's homepage even contains a direct quotation from the Bible.

The school district has carried out its religious mission beyond the use of A Beka textbooks. On the wall of the Belridge School cafeteria hangs a banner, that states, "This is the Day That the Lord Has Made". a biblical psalm. It is telling that no other banners, posters, or signs hang on the cafeteria walls.

In addition to Veronica Van Ry and Rita Elliott, a retired Methodist minister, Milton Andrews, is a plaintiff in the suit. Mr. Andrews, who has university degrees in divinity studies, is a taxpayer in Kern County and California. He strongly objects to the use of taxpayer money for expenditures by the school district in connection with the use of religious-oriented textbooks in public school classrooms and the display of the religious banner on public school walls.

"Nothing in the constitution prevents a public school from integrating the Bible into its curriculum in an objective manner as part of the study of history, literature, comparative religions, or ethics and moral values," said Michael Small, chief counsel of the ACLU- SC. "That is not this case, however. Here, the school district is not teaching about religion; it is, instead, teaching religion. It has embarked on a frightening crusade in which it seeks to indoctrinate behind the schoolhouse gates impressionable students . as young as five years old . into accepting a prescribed religious orthodoxy."

The ACLU-SC complaint argues that the school district's use of A Beka textbooks and its display of the religious banner on the walls of the Belridge School reflect an impermissible religious purpose, in plain violation of the religious freedoms that are guaranteed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution. The complaint further argues that the school district's actions have the impermissible effect of advancing religion generally and endorsing one religious sect over all others . again, in plain violation of the Establishment Clause.

ACLU-SC Staff Attorney Peter Eliasberg said, "This is a case about a public school that inculcates students with its own proscribed version of what God is, who God chooses to listen to, and how one gets on God's good side. It is shocking that public school officials would trample on religious freedom in that way, and turn a blind eye to four-decades worth of fundamental constitutional principles that flatly forbid public schools from converting classrooms into pulpits in which school officials conduct what amount to religious exercises and rituals."

In the papers it filed today, the ACLU has asked a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order that would compel the school district immediately to cease using religious-oriented textbooks for classroom instruction, and to take down the religious banner now displayed on the walls of the school.

A court approved mediation today ended years of legal and political debate over Proposition 187. The agreement confirms that no child in the state of California will be deprived of an education or stripped of healthcare due to their place of birth. It also makes clear that the state cannot regulate immigration, a job clearly assigned by the US constitution and federal law to the national government.

Passed in 1994, Proposition 187 sought to require police, healthcare professionals and teachers to, among other things, verify and report the immigration status of all individuals, including children. A federal district court judge issued an injunction barring implementation of the measure, holding that it violated the US constitution. Today's agreement validates that ruling.

"The seal of the great state of California is now stamped on the death certificate of Proposition 187,. said Mark Rosenbaum, ACLU/SC Legal Director. "The court approved stipulation marks not just the end of this case, but an end to nearly five years of racial divisiveness throughout California."

ACLU/SC Executive Director Ramona Ripston added, " We are pleased that we can put this ugly chapter behind us and can now turn our attention to trying to make California a better place for all people regardless of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or age. A place where immigrants are welcome and can prosper."

"Today's settlement signals that it's time to move beyond the divisiveness of Proposition 187," said Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa. . The decision ensures that children can get an education, working families can get health care, and law enforcement can focus on fighting crime. We stand together today to say in one loud voice that Californians are tired of wedge issues and culture wars."

CHRONOLOGY OF PROPOSITION 187

November 8, 1994 California voters pass Proposition 187. The stated purpose of the Proposition is to " provide for cooperation between [the] agencies of state and local government with the federal government, and to establish a system of required notification by and between such agencies to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits or public services in the State of California."

November 9, 1994 After Proposition 198 passes, several actions challenging its constitutionality are commenced in California state and federal courts. Gregorio T v. Wilson brought by the ACLU/SC and MALDEF, contests all provisions of the initiative. Ultimately, five suits are filed in the United States District Court. The plaintiffs seek to bar the Governor and other state officials and entities from implementing and enforcing the provisions of Proposition 187.

November 1994 A temporary restraining order is issued, barring Proposition 187 from being implemented.

August 22, 1996 President Clinton signs the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRA) of 1996 into law. The PRA creates a statutory scheme that restricts and defines the eligibility of certain non-citizens for federal, state and loval benefits and services.

September 30, 1996 President Clinton signs into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), further supplementing the federal immigration regulatory scheme.

November 20, 1995 - March 13, 1998 The district court issues decisions, ruling that sections 1, and 4 through 9 of Proposition 187 are preempted by the federal PRA, IIRAIRA, and other federal law.

June, 1999 Governor Davis initiates a request for mediation to resolve the appeal of Proposition 187.

July 29, 1999 The mediated agreement is signed by all parties and submitted to the court.

Today the ACLU of Southern California filed a civil rights class action lawsuit in California Superior Court on behalf of public high school students who are being denied equal and adequate access to AP courses. The ACLU/SC lawsuit (Daniel v. State of California) charges that the State of California is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Education Clause of the California constitution. Under the California constitution, public education is a fundamental right making the State obligated to correct inequities in the school system. This first of its kind case represents a compelling example of denial of equal educational opportunities in the aftermath of Proposition 209. The State's failure to assure equal access to AP courses further perpetuates educational inequalities, particularly for students enrolled in lower income, predominantly African-American and Latino schools.

"California is flunking out when it comes to educating these students," said Mark Rosenbaum, ACLU/SC Legal Director. "This is a two-tiered educational system. In the face of its own data, with its eyes wide shut, California places hundreds of thousands of its children on uneven playing fields sodded with quicksand."

The AP program was developed more than 40 years ago by the College Board, a national not-for-profit educational organization, and is administered by the Educational Testing Services. The program allows qualified and motivated high school students to take college-level course material, culminating in an AP exam at the end of the year. Participation in the program serves several purposes. AP courses are traditionally more challenging and demanding than regular and honors courses, providing for greater intellectual and scientific development.

The completion of an AP course provides students with an extra point in the University of California's calculation of their grade point average (GPA) when considering admissions, allowing AP students to earn a GPA above a 4.0 "perfect score." Achieving a score of 3 or higher on an AP exam enables students to earn college credit, thereby reducing the cost of tuition and allowing students to opt out of certain introductory classes.

The high school student plaintiffs wish to take several AP courses throughout their academic career in the Inglewood Unified School District (IUSD). They are academically qualified and have expressed a desire to participate in the AP program.

Inglewood High School offers only 3 AP courses, but this problem is hardly isolated to Inglewood. For example, while Beverly Hills High School, whose student body is 76.6% white, offers 14 different AP subjects and 45 AP classes, Arvin High School, where 93.2% of the student body is African-American and Latino and of a lower income, offers only 2 AP courses. The suit argues that African-American and Latino students, and those from a lower income bracket, are being systematically marginalized from attending California's most prestigious public universities due to these glaring disparities. For example, in 1998, UC Berkeley rejected 8,000 applicants whose GPAs were 4.0 or higher, choosing to accept students with higher GPAs due to their enrollment in AP courses.

ACLU/SC staff attorney Rocio Cordoba said, "Although California has been in the forefront nationally in offering AP courses, such courses must be made equally available to minority and poor students who have the capacity and drive to achieve in higher education. There is no reason why such students should be denied the ability to compete equally for admission to California's elite universities, or to succeed in college degree programs, simply because their school did not provide an adequate AP program."