Riverside Unified School District trustees faced more than an hour of public comment Thursday over a district social-media post and the cancellation of a Poly High volleyball match after players exercised their right not to participate.
Speakers told the Board of Education President Michael Lee and Superintendent Anayomi Llamas that the district’s public post about the match “exposed” students to online harassment and that the district should have communicated privately with families. “This should have been shared with parents and families, not posted where 1,000 people had access,” parent speaker Steven Figueroa said during public comment.
The complaint touched three separate concerns: whether the district followed state law and the Education Code when it posted on social media; how the district protects LGBTQ+ students from harassment; and how athletics decisions affecting student participation are made. Several public speakers said the district’s online post about the Poly–Jurupa Valley match left students and families vulnerable to threats and social-media attacks. Others supported the Poly players who chose not to play, saying that decision was a lawful exercise of student expression.
Superintendent Llamas told the board she was “focused on maintaining a safe learning environment for all students” and said the district is required to follow California law governing student participation in activities related to gender. “Section 200.21 0.5 requires that students be allowed to participate in activities consistent with their gender,” Llamas said, as she reiterated the district’s dual responsibilities to follow state law and to provide support to every student.
Board members said they had heard from both sides and urged continued dialogue. Board member Dr. Tweet described his position as neutral and said he aimed to serve all students: “I take a position of neutrality so I can be effective for our entire community,” he told the meeting. Several board members asked staff for updates on communications policies, avenues for family outreach and how the district documents and investigates harassment and requests for school transfers.
Public commenters also raised related complaints about special education procedures and school-transfer decisions tied to harassment, including references to district procedures and numbered sections the speakers said governed transfers and IEP processes.
The board did not take any immediate disciplinary or policy votes on the gym contest or on social-media policy at the meeting. Trustees invited continued public dialogue and told speakers they would consider placing targeted policy or informational items on a future agenda so the board could review legal obligations, communications practices and options for protecting student privacy and safety.
A mix of speakers from both sides of the issue urged the board to act: some requested a formal board resolution advocating changes to state policy; others urged the district to prioritize safety and privacy. Trustees said they would return the matter for further study and possible action in a later meeting.