Kern County board hears public testimony and legal warnings on proposal to post Ten Commandments in classrooms

The Kern County Board of Education on Dec. 17 heard extended public comment and legal analysis on a proposal to post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, but took no formal vote to adopt such a policy.

The issue drew about 17 people who signed up to speak, the board was told, and speakers both for and against the idea used the public-comment period to press trustees. Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel for the ACLU of Southern California, told trustees that the commandments are religious doctrine and that posting them on classroom walls would violate multiple provisions of the California Constitution as well as established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. "The 10 Commandments are, of course, religious doctrine," Eliasberg said, arguing the displays would prefer Christianity and Judaism and could not be reconciled with constitutional protections for students.

Why it matters: Trustees were repeatedly warned that adopting a mandatory posting requirement would likely trigger litigation and could obligate the county to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees if a court finds the displays unconstitutional. Eliasberg said the California Constitution contains a "no preference" clause, a "no aid" clause and a ban on sectarian instruction that together make classroom postings legally risky; he cited Stone v. Graham and a recent federal decision striking down a Louisiana law as legal precedents that counsel against a mandatory posting.

Most important facts first: The board allowed public testimony and received legal presentations but did not vote to adopt a classroom posting policy. Board staff counted about six people in the audience who indicated they supported posting the Ten Commandments among the 17 people signed to speak. Trustees briefly debated how to allocate time for public comment and agreed to limit speakers to two minutes each to allow everyone on the list to be heard.

Supporting details and context: Public testimony included a range of perspectives. Several speakers framed the commandments as historical or moral documents and asked the board to allow displays. "The 10 Commandments can help," said one speaker who described the commandments as a foundational historical document. Opponents, including local educators, interfaith representatives and civil-rights advocates, said the proposal would privilege particular faiths, distract from academic priorities and could expose the county to legal costs. Student representative Violeta Marisol Morales said learning about the commandments as history could be valuable but she also emphasized respect and responsibility in classroom conduct.

Academic and legal experts who addressed the board emphasized religious content and historical context. Dr. Nancy Meyer, a professor of classics and religious studies, told the board that the commandments are "not just ethical guidelines" and highlighted theological and historical complexities — for example, passages that historically reflected a different social order — and she warned that teachers are not necessarily placed to provide that full context. Eliasberg added that even if proponents frame the displays as historical, California courts are likely to view mandatory classroom postings as an unconstitutional sectarian practice.

Board action and process: Trustees did not vote to require displays; they instead managed the public-comment process and moved the agenda along. Eliasberg offered to submit a written letter summarizing his legal presentation for trustees' consideration. Several speakers and trustees remarked that the item had been discussed previously at an earlier meeting and could be raised again in future agendas.

What was not decided: No policy was adopted at the Dec. 17 meeting. Trustees did not direct staff to implement a posting requirement, and no formal motion to adopt the Ten Commandments for classrooms appears in the meeting record. Eliasberg warned that approving such a policy would "inevitably" be met with litigation and could result in significant attorney-fee awards against the county.

Ending note: Trustees concluded the item after extensive public comment and legal presentations; several attendees urged the board to prioritize academic and student-support needs instead of pursuing a religious-display mandate. The ACLU counsel offered to provide a written memorandum of the legal points discussed to inform any future consideration by the board.