Riverside Unified board faces sustained public outcry after district social‑media post about Poly High forfeit

Dozens of speakers pressed the Riverside Unified School District board on Aug. 21 after a district social‑media post announcing Riverside Poly High School’s forfeit drew intense community response and national media attention. Parents, students and local advocacy groups asked the board to explain who authorized the post and to act to protect student safety.

The contested post, which the district put on its channels, “had huge reach,” one parent said, pointing to hundreds of comments and thousands of reactions on Facebook and Instagram. Multiple callers said the post implicitly identified and endangered a transgender student involved in the controversy.

“Your post allowed this sort of harassment to continue,” Nerida Hernandez said, citing Education Code protections and urging the board to protect “the dignity and safety” of LGBTQ students. Representatives of the Inland Empire Prism Collective urged the board to stop “neutral” statements and to take an explicit stance against harassment.

Other speakers supported Poly athletes who chose to forfeit their match, saying the students exercised their rights and raised fairness and safety concerns. “The girls had every right to forfeit the game,” said one supporter, invoking Title IX and arguing the action was a form of protest.

Board members repeatedly framed their choices around California law. President Lee and multiple trustees referenced AB 1266 and the Education Code, telling the room that the district is required to permit students to participate in sex‑segregated programs consistent with their gender identity. “That’s the law we are charged with following,” a member said, noting the district cannot selectively apply state statutes.

At the same time, trustees emphasized their obligation to protect all students. “We will continue to examine the role we play in promoting productive dialogues,” Superintendent Yamas said, calling for “strong, transparent partnerships” with families and staff and urging civility in public discussion.

Speakers raised procedural and policy asks: review of the district’s social‑media process and who approves posts, clearer guidance for school administrators, faster response to harassment reports, and consideration of a resolution or other public statement. Several asked the board to place a proposed student‑drafted policy on a future agenda; speakers said they had submitted a proposal that the board had not read.

The board acknowledged the concerns and urged continued dialogue while pointing to limits on local authority over state law. Trustees said staff would follow up with the community on several items raised during public comment. The meeting produced no immediate policy changes; the board’s public remarks closed with a pledge to continue the conversation in future meetings.