Responsibility Means More Than Good Intentions – Why the NJUHSD Board Was Right to Proceed with Caution on “Every Student Belongs”

In the emotionally charged atmosphere of student walkouts and public outcry following the Nevada Joint Union High School District (NJUHSD) Board’s vote on Resolution 22/24-25, “Every Student Belongs,” one truth must be underscored: public service requires not just moral clarity, but fiscal responsibility, legal precision, and administrative foresight.

There is no question that the heart of the resolution is noble. Every student deserves a safe, affirming, and inclusive environment. The language of belonging and anti-discrimination is not only morally sound—it is already supported by both state and federal law. These include:

• California Education Code § 200–220 – Guarantees equal rights and opportunities regardless of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected status.

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 – Protects students from sex-based discrimination, including sexual orientation and gender identity under recent federal interpretations.

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – Ensure accessibility and prohibit discrimination based on disability.

• California’s FAIR Education Act (SB 48) – Mandates inclusive instruction related to the contributions of LGBTQ+ individuals and people with disabilities.

These laws are not optional; they are binding and enforceable. In other words, the protections the resolution seeks to affirm already exist as legal obligations. But the question before the NJUHSD Board was not simply one of shared values—it was one of governance.

Governing Means Asking the Hard Questions

The Board of Trustees has a duty to balance more than public sentiment—it must also consider:

• Legal liability

• Policy precedence

• Administrative coherence

• Long-term fiscal impact

Resolution 22/24-25, as written, lacked that balance.

While the resolution made broad declarations of support for inclusion and belonging, it failed to explain how the district would identify, respond to, or enforce instances where students may feel unsafe or excluded.

Key unanswered questions include:

• Would students file complaints?

• Would teachers or administrators be trained differently?

• Would new disciplinary procedures be introduced for bullying or discrimination beyond what’s already in place?

Additionally, the resolution did not propose any budgetary framework or staffing increases—such as school counselors, social workers, or restorative justice coordinators—to support its intent. Nor did it explain how any of its goals would be measured, audited, or improved over time.

In essence, the resolution asserted moral aspirations without offering practical implementation. Governing responsibly means asking: What changes? Who’s accountable? What does it cost?

Not Just Symbolism—But Precedent

The Board was also right to consider the broader impact: Would passage of this resolution—despite its limited scope—set a precedent for California’s 937 other school districts?

Key concerns:

• Would other districts adopt similar symbolic but incomplete measures?

• Could it confuse legal obligations with aspirational goals?

• Might it clash with future federal interpretations of civil rights law?

These concerns are grounded in reality. Past federal administrations have shown that local declarations can conflict with federal law, especially regarding gender identity, immigration status, and Title IX enforcement.

School districts cannot afford to gamble on good intentions without legal and policy clarity.

The Responsibility to Write Better

Just as the board has a responsibility to stand up for students, it also has a responsibility to pass well-crafted policy. This resolution:

• Did not identify what is already guaranteed under law

• Did not clearly define what new action or support was needed

• Did not propose any funding, accountability, or implementation mechanism

If the resolution is to return—and it should—it must be rewritten to reflect operational viability, not just moral intent.

A revised resolution should:

• Reference existing board policies and explain how it will strengthen or amend them

• Clarify current gaps in student support and propose funded solutions

• Avoid conflicts with federal law or language that might jeopardize state or federal funding

• Embrace clear, inclusive language to ensure no group feels singled out or omitted

• Include a framework for monitoring, enforcement, and allocation of resources

A Closing Word: Local Schools and Students Deserve Better Than Political Theater

In the end, Resolution 22/24-25 was irresponsible—not because of its intent, but because of its construction and timing. It brought national political tension into local schools still reeling from pandemic disruption.

• Teachers are exhausted

• Students are behind

• Families are seeking stability and results—not symbolic politics

Rather than uniting the community, this resolution deepened divides and stirred controversy without offering a path forward. It was a knee-jerk response to national headlines, not a thoughtful reflection of local needs.

School boards should focus on what works:

• Funding counselors

• Fixing curriculum gaps

• Training staff

—not writing declarations that serve more as political statements than education policy.

Inclusion is a goal we all share. But real leadership means pursuing it wisely, sustainably, and locally—without sacrificing unity for headlines.