ACLU Sues Conejo Valley School Board Over Sex Pamphlet

The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday filed suit against Thousand Oaks school officials for approving a sex-education pamphlet, published by a conservative Christian group, that promotes sexual abstinence and contains religious references.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, charges that a decision by the Conejo Valley Unified School District board allowing teachers to use the pamphlet violated the state Constitution’s prohibition against teaching religion in public schools.

The pamphlet’s use also violates the Constitution’s “no preference” clause which bars government from favoring one religion over another, the lawsuit contends.

Four women whose children attend district schools were named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“This all could have been avoided if the board had looked at the pamphlet and said, ‘Oh, God is in here, we can’t use it. Toss it out,’ ” said one of the plaintiffs, Robin Cohen Westmiller, whose three elementary-age daughters attend district schools.

School officials responded Thursday that the board approved only the first 10 pages of the pamphlet entitled, “How to Help Your Kids Say ‘No’ to Sex,” and directed teachers not to use the 10-page bibliography of recommended reading titles such as “Love, Sex and God.”

The pamphlet’s conservative Christian publisher, Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, Colo., has allowed the district to reproduce half of the pamphlet containing non-religious information about teen-age sexual decision-making, said Assistant Supt. Richard Simpson.

“I don’t think the board or the staff saw any major problems with the facts” in the first half of the booklet, Simpson said.

However, at a press conference in front of the district’s headquarters, the plaintiffs said at least four students have gotten copies of the pamphlet in its entirety at Thousand Oaks High School.

“If it’s one copy, five copies or 1,500 copies, it doesn’t belong in school,” said Carol Sobel, an attorney with ACLU of Southern California.

Sobel said the lawsuit could be settled if the district takes steps to ensure that only the first half of the pamphlet is distributed for teacher use and confiscates any full copies circulating in schools.

“It’s important for the district to send a message to all school employees that you may not have (full copies) in school at all,” Sobel said.

Six copies were made of the pamphlet’s first half. They were placed in the district’s media center, where only teachers can go to select from among many educational materials approved by the board, Simpson said.

If full copies are circulating, it is without the district’s knowledge, Simpson said.

“I don’t know that to be true, and I don’t believe it is, but if it is true they could have contacted us and we would have handled it,” Simpson said.

At the press conference, the plaintiffs said a “hidden agenda” was underlying the board’s decision Feb. 25 to approve the pamphlet. They said Focus on the Family is a Christian media ministry whose goals include promoting Christian values in public schools.

“We would like our school board to know we are watching them now,” said plaintiff Glenda Lee-Barnard, whose son and daughter attend Conejo Valley schools.

But school board member Dorothy Beaubien--who also sits on the Family Life Materials Review Committee, which recommended approval of the pamphlet--said the pamphlet was approved because it clearly communicated that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

“I don’t care if it was written by a Christian, a Hindu, a Jew or a Buddhist. If the message is clear, then who cares who wrote it?” Beaubien said.

The pamphlet was approved for use by teachers, not for distribution to students, Beaubien said. The plaintiffs are “making a mountain out of a mole hill,” she said.

In addition to raising issues of church and state separation, the lawsuit contends that board members violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, a state law that requires public decision-making bodies to deliberate in open session.

After a closed session that preceded a second public hearing on the issue, board members told the audience how they would vote before people had a chance to speak, the suit says.

Beaubien said the board discussed only legal issues surrounding the pamphlet, and no decisions were made in closed session. However, in an open session soon afterward, individual board members announced spontaneously how they planned to vote, she said.

Sobel said that if the issues of separation of church and state are settled out of court, the plaintiffs might still seek to have the pamphlet’s approval overturned in court for the alleged Brown Act violation.

In that case, the board could simply approve it again in open session, she said.