It was only a few months ago that a San Diego jury found school officials in Poway “deliberately indifferent” to abuse claims made by gay and lesbian students. The jury awarded $300,000. But, as school resumes, rather than admit their mistakes and settle claims of bias, most school districts would rather litigate than mitigate.

Last week, Charlene Nguon, a 17-year-old out lesbian attending Santiago High School in the Garden Grove School District, filed suit for anti-gay bias. She claims school officials revealed her sexual orientation to her parents. They suspended her several times and forced her to temporarily transfer to another campus because she refused their orders to stop hugging and kissing her girlfriend on school grounds. The gist of her suit is that school officials disciplined her while allowing similar behavior by heterosexual couples.

Even more damaging, the school handbook does not prohibit “affectionate” conduct.

Nguon alleges that her grades, once straight As, fell after the school forced her last March to transfer to another school to separate her from her girlfriend.

Students today can claim that such behavior in the school – and the workplace – creates a sexually hostile environment. So, it’s not unusual for school officials to be vigilant about “public displays of affection.” This is because some students would find the conduct offensive, just like workers would find it so in the workplace. The California Supreme Court ruled just a few weeks ago that such conduct in the workplace could create a hostile workplace.

But, as you might expect, there are few cases where straight teens are punished for kissing. Rather, it’s the brave gays and lesbians who are going to be singled out because their conduct “offends” others.

Singling out gay and lesbian students (to the exclusion of straight kids) violates federal and state law prohibiting states from deny equal protection of the law. Disclosing a student’s perceived sexual orientation to a parent may violate California’s right to privacy. Statutes in California, for example, prohibit schools from disclosing to parents that a minor had to leave campus to seek confidential medical services.

In yet another case, student editors have filed suit against officials at East Bakersfield High School and its principal, John L. Gibson. The student editors planned to publish a series of articles dealing with gay students at the high school and other articles germane to GLBT issues. Gibson censored the articles, citing safety concerns for the gay and lesbian students (and their families). So the student editors agreed to hide the identities of the students, and they obtained consent from the students (and their families) to appear in the stories. Nevertheless, Gibson said he would not allow the articles because he had learned that a threat had been made against a transgender student, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Here, the students did everything right. Unlike federal standards, which give school officials carte blanche to censor articles, California law gives student journalists wide latitude to publish articles in the school paper. School officials cannot censor or discipline student reporters unless an article is libelous or would clearly disrupt school affairs. Courts should rule in favor of the students in these cases.

Locally, the Grossmont Union High School District has refused to host a forum on bullying in exchange for dropping a suit filed by the parents of two boys killed several years ago when Andy Williams went on a shooting rampage at Santana High School.

Williams was subjected to daily taunting and bullying at school. The district was aware of gay bashing and race baiting at its schools. Yet it prefers costly litigation to simply hosting a workshop on tolerance.

So why do the districts take such untenable positions when they know they will lose?

School attorneys tell me confidentially that when it comes to GLBT issues, most school boards and administrators don’t care about the damages and attorney fee awards. The money doesn’t come out of their pockets. Rather, the damages and attorney fees, often in the millions, come from school funds.

For many school districts, they liken themselves to Southern schools in the ’60s, which fought desegregation to the bitter end. They will fight GLBT inclusion till the end.

Even those districts that want to do the right thing are bullied into litigation by intimidating parents and right-wing zealots. That’s why it’s time to keeping fighting in the courts, but also to pressure our State Superintendent Jack O’Connell to exercise his discretion and deny public funds to school districts that are not following state law prohibiting schools from engaging in anti-gay bias against students and staff.