RUSD Board Member Warned Against Judging Religious Sincerity; Social Media Claims Otherwise

False claims have been circulating on social media in Riverside over the past week, mischaracterizing statements made by Riverside Unified School District Board Vice President Dr. Noemi Hernandez Alexander during an October 16 board meeting discussion about religious opt-outs from curriculum.

Multiple social media accounts have claimed that Dr. Alexander "explained her desire to see a rubric to determine a person's sincerely held faith by asking them to explain using 'Chapter and Verse' to determine how deep their belief is." The posts have asked followers whether "a school board should have a rubric to determine how 'deep your faith is' for your child to receive an opt-out."

At the October 16 board meeting, district officials updated the board on implementing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, issued in June, which affirmed parents' rights to opt their children out of specific curriculum that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Parents can request an opt-out through a form on the RUSD website.

Dr. Alexander first praised Assistant Superintendent Dr. Daniel Sosa for carefully following legal requirements: "I feel confident that you rolled out exactly what we were legally required to do."

She then questioned the district's process for evaluating opt-out requests: "Going back to process, I think—I almost feel like there needs to be, at some point, developed some type of rubric for us to weigh—almost weigh down—weigh the criteria, because then we can show that we're trying our best to be objective as opposed to subjective. Trying to figure out just how deeply a person's faith is—really, like, can they really quote me chapter and verse about this?"

In a social media response to the claims, Dr. Alexander clarified she was asking administrators "to create an objective method to review the opt-out forms. So that we DO NOT expect parents to write chapter and verse and so that administrators do not have to make those types of judgments."

Board Member Amanda Vickers immediately followed up with a critical question: "And then another question—as far as setting up a rubric essentially to balance these—is that kind of dangerous?"

Christopher Fernandes, an attorney working with the district on opt-out implementation, confirmed the difficulty: "A rubric would be difficult," he explained, noting that the Supreme Court "didn't give us a lot of guidance" beyond the specific facts of the Maryland case.

Dr. Alexander concluded her comments by suggesting the district would likely approve most opt-out requests: "It's almost like if you're requesting one, you can get."

Dr. Sosa emphasized that the ruling "was based on a very specific set of facts" and "doesn't change in any way the existing systems that we already had here in California" for parental opt-outs.