As part of a national campaign demanding accountability and transparency in America’s failing and often corrupt public education system, the leadership of the Alaska Legislature is being called on to audit state education laws and policies.

Defending Education, a national advocacy organization, has joined 26 different parent organizations across the country, including the Alaska Family Council, to urge legislative leaders in each state to take immediate action.

An Oct. 27 letter was sent to Alaska House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, Alaska Senate President Gary Stevens and State Education Commissioner Deena Bishop.

The letter urges a repeal or revision of any laws or provisions that allow race- or sex-based preferences in hiring, admissions, or programming, as well as any that violate the Civil Rights Act, Equal Protection Clause or undermine student safety through poor vetting of abusive employees.

“The goal is to ensure each state’s education system complies with federal civil rights and constitutional protections before violations endanger students and further erode parental trust,” Defending Education stated. “This is a call for a top-to-bottom legal review of state education policies, from hiring and DEI mandates to athletic and facility access rules, asking every state to conduct legal housekeeping to restore trust and compliance.”

School districts that no longer maintain separate athletic programs based on biological sex, are warned that such actions violate Title IX federal law.

The Alaska letter begins by noting that many parents are concerned that state education provision do not properly vet school employees.

“For example, in its 2015-2016 Civil Rights Data Collection Report, the U.S. Department of Education catalogued 9,649 incidents of sexual violence in public schools,” the letter notes. “And a 2023 report assessing that data set revealed that many school districts are under no obligation to notify parents or note the investigation in the employee’s personnel file.”

The letter warns that a public school employee who sexually abuses children is, on average, passed to three school districts and can abuse up to 73 children before they are fired or face legal consequences.

“Collective bargaining agreements negotiated between teacher unions and school districts are a ‘key contributor to the problem, as they ‘often allow for scrubbing of personnel files,’ so no record of abuse is left once an offender leaves the system,” the letter states. “This widespread lack of transparency in educational employment is staggering and unacceptable.”

It also raises concerns about school districts that employ racial quotas, such as affirmative action, in their hiring or programming practices.

“Directing federal education resources to one race over another violates both federal statutory and constitutional law,” the letter warns.

School districts that no longer maintain separate athletic programs based on biological sex, are warned that such actions violate Title IX federal law, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment and various executive orders, and agency guidance from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.

“Defending Education, School Boards For Academic Excellence, and Alaska Family Council request that you audit (and rescind, if appropriate) laws that run contrary to federal constitutional and statutory law, and likewise examine state policies for vetting and hiring school employees so that dangerous individuals cannot gain access to minor children,” the letter urges.

Are schools permitted or instructed to use potentially unlawful proxies for race, sex, or other protected characteristics in admissions, hiring, or programming?

In carrying out a thorough vetting of the state education system the letter suggests lawmakers as the following questions:

1. Are public schools permitted or instructed to use race in admissions, programming, scholarships, or benefits under state law? This includes internships, mentorships, graduation services, facilities, clubs, or events separated by race.

2. Are public schools permitted or instructed to engage in preferential hiring or promotion practices based on race, sex, color, national origin, or religion?

3. Do schools prioritize candidates from “underrepresented groups” for hiring or promotion, and bypass qualified candidates who do not belong to those groups?

4. Are schools permitted or instructed to use potentially unlawful proxies for race, sex, or other protected characteristics in admissions, hiring, or programming? This includes selection based on criteria such as narratives on “overcoming obstacles,” or completing “diversity statements,” ensuring “cultural competence,” or requesting any candidate’s “lived experiences?”

5. May schools engage in geographical or institutional targeting geared toward unlawful preferencing of one individual over another based on protected characteristics?

6. May schools use mandatory minimums for candidate pools to ensure there are a certain number of applicants from particular races among them?

The time for self-examination and legal housekeeping is now.”

7. May a school condition the award of contracts on the basis of characteristics like sex or race?

8. Must schools conduct DEI training programs for staff? This includes but is not limited to those that through content or implementation exclude or disadvantage individuals based on protected characteristics or create a hostile environment.

9. Are public schools permitted or required to open up all educational facilities, private spaces, housing accommodations, overnight accommodations, sports teams, scholarships, or other offerings to any individual based on gender identity, regardless of that student’s underlying biological sex or the privacy and safety concerns of fellow students?

10.May public schools treat “misgendering” of students or staff as a form of sexual harassment under state anti-discrimination law? Relatedly, may schools demand all attendees use mandatory pronouns and chosen names—even if biologically inaccurate?

11. Are schools required to use e-verify to verify the identity and legal status of those applying for positions in those schools or school districts?

12.Must schools engage in routine review of employees hired prior to implementation of e-verify? Must they engage in any background review of employees after initial vetting during the entirety of that employee’s tenure?

13. How does the school board verify educational credentials on resumes of potential hires or current employees?

14.May schools retain search firms to conduct recruitment, and if so, what are the minimum requirements of those search firms? May parents of children in those schools review staff employment contracts?

15. Are schools required to include information about sexual assault or sexual harassment charges, investigations, or convictions brought against any school employee in that individual’s employment file? Are schools required to report charges of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the appropriate criminal and civil authorities (such as the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, local police, etc.)?

“Our goal is to prevent Alaska’s schools from suffering the effects of legislative malfeasance, and to ensure they are the very best in the nation,” the letter concludes. “We know you join us in this aim. The time for self-examination and legal housekeeping is now.”

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.