BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 777
                                                                  Page  1

          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 777 (Kuehl)
          As Amended September 6, 2007
          Majority vote

           SENATE VOTE  :23-13  
           
           JUDICIARY           7-3         EDUCATION           7-3         
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Jones, Evans, Feuer,      |Ayes:|Mullin, Brownley, Coto,   |
          |     |Krekorian, Laird, Levine, |     |Eng, Hancock, Karnette,   |
          |     |Lieber                    |     |Solorio                   |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Tran, Adams, Keene        |Nays:|Garrick, Huff, Nakanishi  |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Creates consistency in educational policy with respect  
          to non-discrimination on the basis of specified characteristics.  
           Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Revises the current list of prohibited bases of discrimination  
            and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and  
            instructional materials in the Education Code so as to make  
            the types of prohibited discrimination explicitly consistent  
            with the protected characteristics contained in the definition  
            of hate crimes in the Penal Code.  

          2)Defines disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,  
            religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose,  
            consistently with the hate crimes statute. 

          3)Replaces current uses of the term "handicapped" (and  
            variations on that term) in the Education Code with the  
            preferred term "disabled" and its variants.

          4)Restates the existing obligation regarding non-discrimination  
            in teacher instruction and district-sponsored activities by  
            deleting the prohibition against "reflecting adversely upon" a  
            specified characteristic and replacing it with a more  
            comprehensible standard "promotes a discriminatory bias" based  
            on the specified characteristics.

          5)Makes technical changes to address chaptering-out conflicts  








                                                                  SB 777
                                                                  Page  2

            with AB 14 (Laird) and SB 859 (Scott).

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  None

           COMMENTS  :  In support of this bill the author states,  
          "Harassment based on discrimination is frequent in schools in  
          California. ?  Discriminatory harassment is a serious problem  
          because it is linked to higher levels of academic, health and  
          safety risk.  Research has shown that inclusive school policies  
          and curriculum make a difference:  when students report that  
          their schools have non-discrimination and anti-harassment  
          policies that include sexual and gender identity, and when they  
          say that they have learned about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual  
          and Transgender) issues at school, they report less harassment  
          and they feel safer."

          Education Code Section 200 broadly sets forth the state's policy  
          to afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in  
          public or private schools and educational institutions of the  
          state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification,  
          race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical  
          disability.  Correspondingly, Education Code Section 220  
          contains a blanket prohibition of discrimination which provides  
          that students in all publicly-funded educational institutions  
          are protected from discrimination based on actual or perceived  
          sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin,  
          religion, color, mental or physical disability or association  
          with a person who has any of these characteristics.  These  
          sections also prohibit discrimination based on actual or  
          perceived characteristics contained in the hate crimes statute,  
          Penal Code Section 422.55, disability, gender, nationality, race  
          or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with  
          a person or group with one or more of these characteristics.  

          In addition to these global non-discrimination provisions, other  
          sections of the Education Code likewise prohibit discrimination  
          in specific circumstances of educational institutions, but have  
          not been consistently updated to reflect evolving state equal  
          opportunity policy.  For example, some of these code sections  
          fail to include sex or disability.  Although those specific  
          directives are subsumed by and subordinate to the general  
          prohibitions, the exclusion of some protected characteristics  
          from the specific sections can create confusion and uncertainty  
          when, as one would expect, members of the education community  
          consult specific provisions of the Education Code to understand  








                                                                  SB 777
                                                                  Page  3

          their non-discrimination obligations.  This bill would provide  
          better guidance by creating consistency among the statutes  
          prohibiting various forms of discrimination by revising the list  
          of prohibited bases of discrimination in Education Code Section  
          200 and 220 (K-12) and Sections 66251, 66270 (higher education)  
          so that it corresponds with the list in the hate crimes statute.  
           This bill would also define the protected characteristics  
          consistently with the definitions currently codified in the hate  
          crimes law.  

          As opponents note, the main effect of this revision is to  
          expressly add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected  
          classes.  However, the explicit inclusion of sexual orientation  
          is not truly a substantive change because Education Code  
          Sections 200 and 220 already cross-reference the list of  
          prohibited characteristics in the hate crimes statute, which  
          includes sexual orientation.  In other words, this bill simply  
          adds expressly what is already incorporated by reference.  This  
          bill notably does not in any way eliminate or reduce the  
          existing exemption from non-discrimination obligations by  
          religious schools when compliance with the obligation would be  
          inconsistent with the religious tenets of the school.  (See,  
          e.g., Op. of Attny Gen. 99-1001 (May 1, 2000).)

          The Traditional Values Coalition reflects the views of many  
          opponents, summarizing its arguments as follows:  "SB 777 is a  
          dangerous bill for several reasons: 1) It forces all subjects to  
          focus on an aspect of sexual life without proper context; 2) It  
          will indoctrinate young children into an inaccurate perspective  
          on homosexuality during some of the most formative years of  
          their lives; 3) It may allow for the banning of Bibles, Torahs,  
          and other religious texts that speak out against homosexuality;  
          and 4) It discriminates against religious viewpoints, and  
          comprises a direct attack upon religious liberty and tolerance,  
          which are the bedrock of American society."


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 


                                                                FN: 0003153