CFER’s 2026 annual conference [registration](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=29e492f710&e=419c6d2e60) is open! Between now and **July 7th, you can enjoy an early bird special** for our two-day conference program, which will be hosted on July 24th and July 25th in Irvine.  
  
For our fourth annual conference, CFER will bring together experts, reformers, elected officials and advocates in deep dives into important policy issues on education, race relations, governance and more. So far, we have confirmed **a prestigious lineup of speakers and panelists**, to include:

-   Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Devon Westhill
-   CFER Executive Vice President Gail Heriot
-   Pacific Research Institute Senior Director of Education Studies Lance Izumi
-   Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Andrew Quinio
-   UCLA Professor of Law Richard Sander
-   PUSD Community Watch Cofounder Lenice Sechris
-   California Policy Center President Jackson Reese
-   College Fix Editor-in-Chief Jennifer Kabbany
-   Parents Defending Education Research Director Rhyen Staley
-   Orange County Board of Education President Mari Barke
-   CFER Advisor Joe Nalven
-   Equal Rights Advocate Nan Zhong
-   Equal Rights for All PAC Vice President Tony Guan

While we are nearly two years into a new federal administration that is willing to take on the ideological swamp, many pro-education, pro-common-sense and pro-equality policy developments are yet to become meaningfully impactful to course correct the former trajectory of race- and gender-based identity politics. For the conference’s keynote address, we will be joined by **USDA Assistant Secretary  [Devon Westhill](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=697d82705e&e=419c6d2e60)  who will unpack for us the series of federal policy changes pertaining to civil rights and equal justice**. Secretary Westhill has a long tenure in civil rights advocacy, as the former president of the Center for Equal Opportunity. He also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the USDA in President Trump’s first term. Following the keynote speech, **Professor Gail Heriot and Dr. Lance Izumi will engage in a panel discussion on federal policies**, with a focus on developments in reforming college accreditation and defunding minority serving institutions.  
  
Federal-level redress to combat discrimination and indoctrination, however encouraging, may seem out of reach for Californian parents, residents and voters who continue to contend with state and local attempts to defy the redress. A recent Department of Justice investigation [found](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=ab66692b3d&e=419c6d2e60) that UCLA engaged in racial discrimination in its medical school admissions. The investigation dovetails two federal lawsuits against the entire UC system regarding its racially balancing undergraduate admissions. To bridge the federal-level developments and state-level realities, our conference program will feature a panel discussion between **Mr. Andrew Quinio and Professor Richard Sander**, who will **explore relevant state policies and the resistance against federal reforms from major players such as the University of California system**.  
  
We understand that politics is downstream from culture and intend to bring our discussions to the local level. CFER President Frank Xu will be joined by **Mr. Jackson Reese and Ms. Lenice Sechrist** in **a panel on local organizing, sharing insights and success stories on how parents and community advocates have proactively promoted excellence and accountability.** Our program will also delve into the issues of **curriculum and public opinions with a discussion by Ms. Jennifer Kabbany, Mr. Rhyen Staley and Hon. Mari Barke**. Last but not least, **Dr. Joe Nalven, Mr. Tony Guan and Mr. Nan Zhong will have a conversation on the role of AI in changing the landscape of civil rights advocacy**.  
  
We hope this succinct program overview gives you a good preview of our upcoming annual event. Again, please take advantage **of our early bird special to  [sign up](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=6f356beae1&e=419c6d2e60)  to attend the conference**. The special expires on July 6th. If you are a CFER member (“stakeholder” level and above), you may also qualify for a discount ticket at $20. You can [log in](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=88cc8ff42c&e=419c6d2e60) to your member portal to check your membership pricing.  
  
ICYMI, **CFER and allies are doing a Capitol Tour on Monday (May 11th) in Sacramento to raise awareness on ACA 7**. Please see our flyer below. If you are interested and available, we would love for you to join us! [Sign up](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=9f03f154a0&e=419c6d2e60) to join here.  
  
Thank you for your support and trust, as always!

![campaign endorsements (4).png](https://strapi-cfer.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/38427d18c51b0631394dc323005dd774.png)

large_Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

medium_Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

small_Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

thumbnail_Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

Early bird registration now open for CFER 2026 conference


On Wednesday (04/28), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3  [ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf)  on  _Louisiana v. Callais_, effectively outlawing race-based redistricting practices. The decision, directly invalidating a second Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana, considerably limits the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by restricting states’ use of race as a factor in drawing congressional maps.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing the majority opinion, argues: “**the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race**.” Justice Alito’s opinion echoes Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s 2023 ruling on  _SFFA v. Harvard_: “**Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it**.” This decisive interpretation of the Constitution and case law  **validates the letter and spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964**.

Unsurprisingly, proponents of race-based government action are  [smearing](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-ruling_n_69611055e4b0120ab25d13aa/amp)  the decision as a major blow to civil rights, racial justice and minority representation.  **Such inflammatory reasoning can only be true if we as a nation hold on to the debunked notion that Americans of different racial backgrounds are best represented by elected officials who look like them**. This essentially racial-pairing argument is similar to the pervasive “rationale” in education policy-making that students of certain demographics should be taught by teachers who look them.  **Different areas of focus, same tactic of racial segregation**.

We believe that America, as naturally diverse as it has been since its founding, has long traveled past the point of having to use group-based, positive, affirmative action to remedy historical wrongs. As Justice Alito wrote in the ruling, “Although  _any_  use of race in government decision-making generally triggers strict scrutiny, in gerrymandering cases a challenger must show that race was the government’s predominant consideration.”

In fact, Wednesday’s landmark ruling **comports with the guiding principle of non-discrimination behind the Fifteenth Amendment**, that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It reassures America’s cardinal principle of equality, which is, albeit once temporarily tagged to group representation,  **fundamentally and unambiguously about the equal rights of all Americans, from educational access to political participation, on the basis of the individual**.

Once again, the nation’s highest court interprets the law in faithful observation of our constitutional guarantee of equal protection, a cause that CFER has dedicated to in the last six years. We applaud this step and pledge to keep up our work in the same direction.


large_9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

medium_9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

small_9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

thumbnail_9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

Landmark ruling on Voting Rights Act reaffirms the spirit of civil rights

On April 21, CFER, member co-plaintiffs and the American Civil Rights Project (ACR Project)  **filed a** [**lawsuit**](https://www.americancivilrightsproject.org/blog/acr-project-for-cfer-and-its-members-challenges-californias-black-infant-health-program/) **in Sacramento to challenge the state’s Black Infant Health (BIH) program**. In the legal action, we argue that the State of California has engaged in racial discrimination through BIH, violating the U.S. and California Constitutions, as well as Title VI in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since 1989, the California Department of Public Health has maintained this program, handing out favorable treatment to pregnant women and newborns on the basis of race. At the beginning, BIH was promoted as an initiative to equalize health outcomes for Black mothers and children as compared to those from other groups. It has been 37 years since the program’s inception and the state has no plan to transition the program from a racially exclusionary premise to a race-neutral one. Dispensing this public benefit based on race violates:

· The Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution

· Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

· Provisions of the California Constitution, including its Equal Protection Clause (Article I, Section 7) and—to the extent BIH operates through contracts—Prop. 209(Article I, Section 31)

Answering CFER’s  [call for plaintiffs](https://www.cferfoundation.org/posts/post-BIH-action-alert)  , three courageous CFER members agreed to join the lawsuit as representative taxpayers. Our lawsuit also compliments a parallel class-action  [challenge](https://pacificlegal.org/case/jimenez-california-bih-program-race/)  in the launched by another CFER member in federal court with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation.

There is no question that protecting the health of all pregnant women and newborns—of all races—is a worthy social goal.  When governments go beyond that kind of laudable commitment to advance the health and safety of  _only_  pregnant women and newborns of a single race to the exclusion of others, that’s something else entirely.

We are asking that the Sacramento Superior Court declare the BIH program unconstitutional and illegal, issue a writ of mandamus commanding the state to cease using state resources or funds to support it so long as it continues to discriminate on the basis of race, and for related preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Once again, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. We have seen the fruitful outcomes of CFER’s legal advocacy in many past cases and we believe we will prevail again. If you have any information on potentially unconstitutional public programs throughout California, can you please let us know?

medium_cover0823.jpeg

small_cover0823.jpeg

thumbnail_cover0823.jpeg

cover0823.jpeg

We just sued the California Department of Public Health to stop the unconstitutional “Black Infant Health” program

Please join CFER and CFER friends in Sacramento next month as we plan to tour the State Capitol and voice our concerns on ACA 7. We will meet with state senators and their staffers, give them handouts on why California should stand behind equal rights and speak on the importance of Prop. 209.  
  
Currently, ACA 7 is still pending committee assignments at the Senate Rules Committee. It may be assigned at any moment. If this partial and dangerous repeal goes on the state ballot, it will be a grave threat to equal education rights. Please consider writing to your state senator(s) in opposition to the bill. You can find your state senator(s) [here](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=bfef84347f&e=0111f1f5cd). Alternatively, you can utilize this one-click emailing [tool](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=daa60521e2&e=0111f1f5cd) developed by CFER partner Equal Rights for All Pac.  
  
**If you can participate, please register through this  [link](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=01de59fb4d&e=0111f1f5cd).** We look forward to seeing you in May!

**Location:** 1021 O St., Sacramento, CA 95814

**Date/Time:** 9 am -5 pm PT, Monday, May 11th, 2026

large_campaign endorsements (4).png

medium_campaign endorsements (4).png

small_campaign endorsements (4).png

thumbnail_campaign endorsements (4).png

campaign endorsements (4).png

Join us on Monday, 5/11 in Sacramento for a "No on ACA 7" Capitol tour!

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic  [ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a810_b97d.pdf)  in  _Mirabelli v. Bonta_, effectively ending California’s state policy of gender secrecy. As a result, California school districts can no longer facilitate children’s gender transitions without informing parents. Nor will teachers be forced, against their religious beliefs and moral convictions, to use different names and pronouns behind parents’ backs.

Congratulations to all the parties involved in bringing this victory through our nation’s higher court, including lead counsel Paul Jonna of the Thomas More Society, who helped CFER take down religious chants in the ethnic studies curriculum in 2021!

While we celebrate such a decisive win for parental rights and religious freedom, we can’t ignore another emerging reality: progressive  _educrats_  and teacher activists are  [scheming](https://yubanet.com/california/california-legislative-lgbtq-caucus-condemns-supreme-court-shadow-docket-mirabelli-ruling/)  ways to circumvent and undermine the ban in defiance. As with the previous landmark Supreme Court  [ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf)  in  _SFFA v. Harvard_, which bans race-based college admissions, the other side always spins the story and concocts false narratives. This time, opponents of parental rights and traditional family values condemn the ruling as “forced outing” and “anti-LGBTQ+” rhetoric. Individual school districts are being given a signal to carry on the harmful gender ideology as usual.

We can’t let that happen. Although the law and national policies are favorable to our side, it is our responsibility to monitor the implementation at the local school district level. Once again, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Please allow us to make the following suggestions to help you bring the positive changes from the court to your local community:

1. Speak up at your next school board meeting and put the school district on notice regarding the ban on gender secrecy.

2. Continue to monitor curricula, policies and initiatives in your local school district for evidence of indoctrination and discrimination.

3. Connect with fellow parents and citizens to grow and sustain the movement for parental rights, transparency, excellence, merit and truth.

CFER is ready and willing to help you on your journey. Please let us know how we can be of best assistance to you in your specific situations/circumstances.

medium_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

small_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

thumbnail_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

Supreme Court ruled against gender secrecy. We must make sure schools follow the law!

California’s progressive political establishment has a never-ceasing desire to insert race into public policies, even in the face of legal risks. As you may know, in January, CFER [finalized](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=283af60219&e=0111f1f5cd) a settlement with San Francisco for the latter to defund four unconstitutional guaranteed income programs. Two of the four programs provided cash stipends to black pregnant women and mothers. **While California’s most progressive icon backed down from using race to determine recipients of government assistance for maternal/infant health, the State Government doubled down with a program called “**[**Black Infant Health**](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=251e6b5aa4&e=0111f1f5cd) **(BIH).”**  
  
Branded as “a health equity program that offers individual and support to pregnant and post-partum Black mothers and birthing people,” BIH seeks to “help participants enhance life skills within **a culturally affirming and supportive environment that honors the unique history of Black women and birthing people, reduces stress, and build social support**.” Specifically, the program provides: 1. 10 prenatal and 10 postpartum sessions designed to empower and support participants; 2. 1:1 support available to 16- and 17-year-old participants and those who are unable to attend group sessions. The initiative was “created in recognition that **anti-Black racism, social and economic stressors, and neighborhood conditions** contribute to poor birth outcomes for Black mothers, birthing people, and infants.”

Ladies and gentlemen, this is **government-endorsed racism in action**. Should the government help at-risk expecting mothers? Of course! **But it should do so without regard to race**. Besides, the research cited by the California Department of Public Health in justification for BIH is rudimentary and false. There are some over-the-top grievance studies generalized to legitimize the theory of systemic inequities as an overarching structure behind disparities. The state also misinterprets more rigorous studies to place race over more influential factors such as a host of previous health conditions. CFER Executive Director Dr. Wenyuan Wu has detailed the abuse and misuse of research in similar programs [here](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=9f725a856d&e=0111f1f5cd).  
  
Back in 2023, when the State Legislature considered [AB 1701](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=15c936cb46&e=0111f1f5cd) “Black Infant Health: California Perinatal Equity Initiative,” CFER [opposed](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=b0f6ac77c2&e=0111f1f5cd) it. In our position letter, we wrote:  
  
“According to data from the March of Dimes, during 2017 and 2019, the infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births in California was lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (2.9), compared with for White infants (3.2), Hispanic infants (4.4), and Black infants (8.3)… [I]n 2020, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 861 women in the United States died related to pregnancy, out of a total of about 3.6 million births—a rate of 0.02 percent. Over 350 were white, while under 300 were black.”  
  
Our evidence-rich position was ignored and the bill was signed into law. But government action should not be the final say on this matter. **We still have the court of law and we intend to use it to defend equal treatment against racial favors**.  
  
As such, can we recruit your support in helping CFER identify potential victims that are missing out on government assistance to their maternal health and their babies’ care? **If you know someone who is pregnant or planning to get pregnant soon, can you please connect us with her? That person can help CFER bring a legal challenge against the state to stop BIH as an unnamed member plaintiff.**  
  
Currently, BIH is present in these [communities](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=f930775139&e=0111f1f5cd) “where over 90% of African-American births occur.” We would love to talk with an eligible member plaintiff from one of these areas but we are also open to any Californian who is expecting. Simply reply to this email if you have a lead and we will be in touch!

medium_BIH.png

small_BIH.png

thumbnail_BIH.png

BIH.png

Pregnant or planning to? Join us to halt statewide “Black Infant Health” program!

State Policies

Local School District Policies

CRT in School Districts

Defund DEI

Research by CFER Allies

CFER Research & More

Alliance Building

Endorsement

CFER Membership

CFER Foundation

Policies

Research

Alliance

Posts