Board Firm in Gender Debate

A divided board of trustees for a small Orange County school district refused Thursday night to reverse its defiant stand against a state antidiscrimination law.

Their unbending stance sets the Westminster School District on a collision course with state education officials, who could withhold millions of dollars in funding as a sanction. It also prompted opponents to serve two of the trustees with papers notifying them of an official recall effort.

The decision is certain to further fuel the anger of California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, who sent a rare, personal letter to the board Thursday, spelling out the possible sanctions and promising to “move with all deliberate speed if you challenge my authority.”

The board’s action was greeted by an outburst of boos and hisses.

“This just makes me sick,” said Loretta Courtemarche, the longest serving teacher in the district, after the decision. “They are trying to push this as an issue with God. They’re putting our children in jeopardy. I’m now ready to kick the members out.”

Julie Peterson of Huntington Beach told her 10-year-old son, Clay: “They don’t care about you.” Peterson says she wasn’t aware of the board’s position until this week when Clay alerted her. “He told me that his school was going to lose $40 million because of the board. I teach my child morals. His school is responsible for teaching reading, writing and mathematics. It was absolutely, completely moronic to the end.”

At issue is the wording of a state law that requires schools to protect certain groups from discrimination, including transsexuals and others who do not conform to traditional gender roles. Citing their Christian faith, the three-member majority of Judy Ahrens, Helena Rutkowski and Blossie Marquez-Woodcock have held firm for months to their belief that the law immorally allows students and teachers to define their own gender and promotes alternative lifestyles. They have repeatedly refused to revise the district’s policy to comply with the state law.

O’Connell’s letter was read aloud at the start of the meeting by Board President James Reed -- who supports the law, along with trustee Jo-Ann Purcell -- to thunderous applause and a standing ovation. O’Connell harshly criticized the board, saying that its position was “immoral,” “unconscionable” and “indefensible.”

The overflow crowd of more than 900 that packed the auditorium at Stacey Middle School was overwhelmingly opposed to the majority’s stance. For almost two hours, the stone-faced trustees sat onstage and endured a barrage of criticism, calls for their resignation and pleas to change their vote.

“How dare you use my son as a shield for your discrimination, your fear and your hatred?” said Donna Scott, a parent of one student.

Her sentiments were echoed by parent David Labinger: “You on the board are all entitled to hold whatever personal religious beliefs that you desire, but to endanger an entire school district because of those personal beliefs goes against the values you purport to uphold.”

But the board majority also had a few supporters.

Richard Sturges, a pastor at a local church, asked them to remain strong. “It’s interesting that the word ‘tolerance’ is used a lot this evening,” he said. “Does that mean agreeing with just one point of view?”

The three trustees’ stance has pitted them against state officials, fellow board members, teachers and parents who accuse them of putting their personal beliefs ahead of their obligation to uphold state law and protect the district’s students.

*

Times staff writer Kevin Pang contributed to this report.