Lincoln Community Member Shares Formal Complaint Sent to WPUSD Regarding Holly Andreatta’s Comments at Twelve Bridges High School and the School’s Failures
Next Door Post from Rachel Ortiz of Lincoln Crossing:
Hi neighbors — I’m sharing a series of images that together make up a formal complaint I submitted regarding a recent guest speaker event at Twelve Bridges High School. ND doesn’t allow PDFs, so I had to break the document into images. I’m posting this because what happened affects our entire community, and parents deserve access to the full, documented record — including the timeline, direct quotes, and the specific concerns about student safety, appropriate boundaries in a public school, and district accountability. This is not about political disagreements or personal beliefs. It’s about what is legally and ethically appropriate for minors during the school day, and whether the safeguards we expect for our kids were followed. Many parents were not informed in advance, and students were placed in a situation that should never have occurred without transparency or oversight. I know it’s long, but I strongly encourage anyone who cares about our schools and our kids to take a few minutes to scroll through before commenting or sharing. I’m asking for a written response, real accountability, and meaningful protections so this does not happen again. Thank you for taking the time to read — this matters.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
Failure to Protect Students; School-Facilitated Religious, Political, and Racial Harm
Twelve Bridges High School / Western Placer Unified School District
I am writing this as a mother.
Not just the mother of a student at Twelve Bridges High School, but as a parent speaking for every child who was placed in harm's way on December 11, and for every family who was denied the right to make an informed decision about what their children would be exposed to while under the school's care.
This is not about political disagreement.
This is not about religion.
This is not about "free speech" in the abstract.
This is about adults in positions of authority violating the law, district policy, and their most basic duty to protect children.
What occurred at Twelve Bridges High School was not accidental, not incidental, and not protected by the Equal Access Act. It was the predictable outcome of deliberate decisions by district and school leadership that facilitated, promoted, supervised, and then defended an adult-led lecture delivering religious threats, racialized misinformation, extremist ideology, and discriminatory harm to minors during the school day.
That responsibility lies overwhelmingly with the district and the school.
What the School and District Actively Did
This was not a case of a school merely "allowing a club to exist."
A sitting district board member personally invited the speaker, a political candidate she publicly endorses. The speaker herself states that she asked what she should talk about and was instructed to speak about Charlie Kirk's relationship to Christ and extrapolate that to students. That direction did not come from students.
The school then sent three invitations in 24 hours to students' district-issued email accounts-accounts students are required to monitor as part of school attendance. This was active promotion, not …. (the words were obstructed)
The event was held on campus, during the school day, in a classroom, with administrative presence. The principal was in the room. The speaker acknowledged enforcement of fire and education codes mid-lecture due to overcrowding. This is state action.
Once a school promotes, directs, supervises, and amplifies an event, it cannot claim neutrality or hide behind Equal Access.
Parent Notification Was Inadequate and Unequal
Students were invited through school channels. Parents were only notified if they had opted into ParentSquare, an optional platform the district knows does not reach all families. Parents who were not opted in received no notice at all.
No alternative communication was used. No universal notice was provided. No content disclosure was given. I had to sign a release for my son to watch a movie with peppered language, but the school can invite him three times in 24 hours to hear that hell is reserved for people (like him) that do not subscribe to the Christian faith?
Parents were never told that students would be exposed to religious proselytizing, threats of hell, demonization of dissent, misinformation about DEl, stigmatization of LGBTQ+ identity, or extremist historical revisionism.
Some parents were given information. Others were not.
That is a violation of parental trust and basic due process.
This Was Not a Student-Led Discussion
The district's characterization of this event as a student-led club discussion is contradicted by the recording.
This was an adult-led lecture. Students sat as an audience. When students attempted to ask questions or challenge misinformation, they were interrupted, dismissed, corrected without evidence, or shut down with statements such as "you are wrong," "you need to learn your history," "you need to actually listen," and "that's what the news tells you to think."
When a student asked about Charlie Kirk's views on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the speaker asserted that "a lot of research" shows Dr. King was a Marxist whose civil-rights advocacy was not helpful. No sources were provided. No balance was offered. The bell rang and students were dismissed before rebuttal.
Suppressing student speech while delivering adult ideology is the opposite of Equal Access.
The Equal Access Act exists to protect student expression, not to provide cover for adult indoctrination and silencing.
Religious Coercion in Violation of the Establishment Clause
Students were told that people who do not choose God are destined for hell. They were told that dissenting viewpoints are influenced by the devil.
This is not academic discussion. It is fear-based religious coercion.
Under the First Amendment Establishment Clause, public schools may not endorse religion, promote religious doctrine, or subject students to religious pressure or threats.
Courts have repeatedly held that coercion can exist even when attendance is technically voluntary, particularly where minors are involved and authority figures are present.
This occurred during the school day, on campus, with administrative supervision. It is unconstitutional.
LGBTQ+ Harm and Title IX Violations
During the lecture, the speaker stated that her daughter experienced childhood trauma and that, as a result, she is a lesbian. She then explained that this causes internal struggle because she believes marriage is only between a man and a woman and that scripture is "very clear on homosexuality."
This statement explicitly links sexual orientation to trauma, frames LGBTQ+ identity as morally deficient, and delegitimizes same-sex marriage.
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity. California Education Code sections 200 and 220 similarly require schools to protect students from discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation.
Allowing an adult speaker to stigmatize LGBTQ+ identity in a school-facilitated setting creates a hostile educational environment. Later denials do not undo harm that occurred in real time to LGBTQ students sitting in that room.
There is zero credible scientific evidence that sexual orientation is caused by trauma.
• The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and
American Academy of Pediatrics recognize sexual orientation as a naturally occurring aspect of human diversity.
• Multiple peer-reviewed studies show no causal link between childhood trauma and sexual orientation.
Framing LGBTQ identity as the result of trauma is a discredited theory associated with conversion ideology.
Constitutional Misinformation: Church and State
The speaker stated:
"Separation of church and state is a woke myth. It's not in the Constitution."
The actual law
• First Amendment - Establishment Clause
Thomas Jefferson (1802): "a wall of separation between Church & State"
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Abington v. Schempp (1963)
Why was this unacceptable?
An invited adult delivered false constitutional instruction to minors during the school day, under school supervision, without correction. This summarily contradicts the state approved History/Social Studies/Civics curriculum that schools are REQUIRED to abide by.
Racial Harm, DEl Misinformation, and a Hostile Environment
A student raised a respectful, fact-based concern about racist remarks associated with Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA. The student referenced harm to marginalized communities and DEl rhetoric.
The speaker responded by repeating a widely debunked extremist talking point: that DEl requires racial quotas, that industries are forced to hire unqualified Black professionals, and that this allegedly lowers standards and endangers lives, using airline pilots as the example.
These claims are false. DEl does not mandate quotas. It does not override qualifications. It does not lower safety standards. The "50% Black pilots" narrative is a recognized racist dog whistle rejected by industry data and civil-rights organizations.
The actual facts
• FAA pilot certification standards are federal law and do not change based on
race, gender, or DEl initiatives.
All pilots must meet the same FAA requirements for:
flight hours medical certification
written examinations
practical flight tests
There is no data linking DEl initiatives to reduced aviation safety.
When the student corrected this and asked for evidence, the speaker admitted she did not have statistics and shut the discussion down.
Under California's Safe Place to Learn Act and Education Code sections 200 and 220, schools must protect students-especially students of color-from harassment, intimidation, and discriminatory harm. Allowing racialized misinformation to be presented as fact while silencing student correction violates that duty.
Students—particularly students of color-were invited to hear that their inclusion is dangerous. That is defamatory, stigmatizing, and factually false. Students of color were invited by their school to hear that people who look like them are less competent and that the Civil Rights Movement securing their access to education and giving them the right to be in that room was "not helpful."
Student Safety: A Child Asked for Help — Adults Did Nothing
A student stated:
"I am gender-queer, pansexual... and I feel unsafe because of some of the comments."
The speaker responded:
"There's nothing unsafe about this room... maybe that's what the media is saying."
No administrator, teacher, or advisor intervened. The lecture continued.
Once a student expresses feeling unsafe based on protected characteristics, the district has actual notice and an affirmative duty to intervene.
Title IX - prompt and effective response required
CA Education Code $234.1 - immediate intervention required
Here is the moral reality of this situation. This student did what adults trained them and instructed them to do. They reached out for help when they felt unsafe. They spoke up
about their fear. They were ignored and the message that "your concerns and fears don't matter here" was summarily enforced. Watching a student ask for help and allowing the harm to continue is not neutrality. In a school setting, it is cruel. It is not the treatment any child deserves when asking for help. It is the responsibility of the school, the district, the supervising adults, the Principal and the administration to protect students in their care during school hours. Every one of those individuals failed that child. WUSD leadership reinforced that failure by skirting accountability in their post event "It's not our fault" press release. It's cowardly, shameful, and every one of those adults should be held accountable.
Political Campaign Activity and Improper Use of School Access
The speaker had recently launched a political campaign for City Supervisor. The invitation came from a sitting board member who is publicly listed on the speaker's campaign website as an endorser. The content of the lecture was directed by an adult, not students.
Whether or not money changed hands, this provided in-kind campaign benefit: access to a captive youth audience, institutional credibility, and visibility tied to a political campaign.
Public schools may not be used to advance political campaigns or provide unequal political access to minors. This raises serious concerns under state ethics rules and district policy.
The District's Equal Access Defense Fails
After the event, the district sent a mass email to all parents-this time using direct email, not the opt-in platform used for invitations-invoking education code and Equal Access to avoid accountability.
Equal Access does not apply where a school:
actively promotes an event,
directs content
supervises the speaker,
silences student dissent,
tolerates religious coercion,
permits discriminatory harm,
and provides political benefit.
The district's own actions remove them from the protection they are attempting to claim.
District Policy Failures
District policy requires:
protection of student safety and well-being,
nondiscrimination,
respect for parental rights,
and responsible oversight of guest speakers.
None of those obligations were met.
What followed-the district's minimization of harm, lack of apology to students, and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing-only compounds the failure.
As a Mother, This Is the Line
I send my child to school trusting that adults will protect them, not frighten them into belief, not shame them for who they are, not tell them they are broken, sinful, or dangerous, and not use them as an audience for extremist ideology.
Children are not political tools.
They are not religious conversion targets.
They are not collateral damage in adult culture wars.
They are kids.
And on December 11, the adults in charge failed them.
Demands for Accountability
An apology to your students and their parents is the right thing to do. It is less than the minimum. It is also not sufficient. On December 11th, the TBHS and WUSD actively chose political and religious propaganda and partisanship over the rights and emotional wellbeing and the safety of its most vulnerable students of legally protected classes. The school invited them to an event with zero context or disclosure.
I am demanding:
full written disclosure of who approved, directed, and promoted this event;
disclosure of any compensation, reimbursement, or campaign benefit provided to the speaker;
meaningful consequences for those responsible, not training or policy review;
enforceable standards for guest speakers, including content disclosure and universal parent notification;
written assurances that religious coercion, racialized misinformation, and discriminatory harm will not be permitted again;
explicit protections for LGBTQ+ students and students of color.
In closing, I trust the district will ensure that my child is not subjected to retaliation or differential treatment.
The school used compulsory communication systems to invite protected classes of children to hear themselves humiliated, misrepresented, and dismissed-and when a student asked for help, adults watched and did nothing.
That is not education.
It is harm. Anyone that can not clearly see that has no business educating the next generation.
It is unacceptable that the school and the district allowed children to be exposed to this content and then minimized the impact through a post hoc disclaimer that effectively asserts, "this was not our fault and we had nothing to do with it." That characterization is both inaccurate and deeply troubling.
All of us are aware that w are living in an intensely politically divided time. We also know— without dispute-that many of the narratives presented during this event are deliberately designed to divide, marginalize, and harm. That is exactly what occurred here. Students were invited by their school administrators, through district-mandated communication systems, into a setting where they were insulted, demeaned, delegitimized, stigmatized, and humiliated based on protected characteristics-and the school did nothing to stop it.
The district's attempt to shield itself behind a generalized "student club" explanation is insufficient and disingenuous. This was not a passive flyer on a bulletin board or informal student word-of-mouth. This was direct, school-facilitated invitational outreach, delivered through district-issued email accounts that students are required to monitor throughout the school day. The school's involvement was active, not incidental.
This matter is not about political beliefs or partisan preferences. It is not about which ideology one may personally favor. It is about harm to children-harm that was encouraged, enabled, promoted, supervised, and ultimately tolerated by the school and its administrators.
Most concerning of all is the districts clear and shameless refusal—thus far—to acknowledge accountability for those failures. The school had multiple opportunities to protect students and failed at each one: in vetting the speaker, in approving and promoting the event, in supervising the meeting, in responding to a student's plea for safety, and in its aftermath communications.
In doing so, the district did not merely exercise poor judgment—it significantly violated nearly every federal, state, district, and constitutional mandate specifically designed to educate, safeguard, and protect children in a public school setting. These mandates exist precisely to prevent the kind of harm that occurred here.
This constitutes a clear dereliction of the school's duty to protect its most vulnerable students and to maintain a safe, nondiscriminatory educational environment. I expect the district to treat this matter with the seriousness it warrants-through transparency, accountability, and meaningful consequences-not deflection.
lexpect transparency, accountability, and consequences.
I do not consent to private meetings, phone calls, or off-the-record conversations from TBHS or District representatives. All responses must be provided in writing.
This complaint has been shared with district leadership, board members, oversight bodies, and members of the press.
I am not going away. Not because I am emotional-but because I am informed, and because this matters.
Our children deserve better, and I intend to make it my mission as a parent to make sure that they receive the acceptance, respect, and validation that they are due.
I am a firm believer in transparency and accountability. Therefore, I have included the link below to the full recording of the speakers' lecture as well as all three invitational emails sent to all the students in the school. I have also provided a verbatim transcript of the lecture to ensure accuracy and context.
See full YouTube video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsnTzhJUPIQ
Club America Event - Holly Andreatta (Guest Sneaker)
——-
Shared by a community member. For information only. Does not necessarily reflect the views of the Placer County Democratic Party.
