A Skokie school district says it’s not liable for the racially offensive conduct of students, parents and employees and asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to force implementation of so-called anti-racist policies and programs.
Four parents of students in Fairview School District 72 filed a complaint in Cook County Circuit Court on Jan. 3 against the seven board members of the K-8 district and Superintendent Cindy Whittaker, alleging a hostile learning environment for minority students as well as being denied access to teachers and administrators at the same level granted to white parents.
On June 3, Ring filed an amended complaint, adding as defendants Gov. JB Pritzker and state Superintendent Carmen Ayala and seeking court orders potentially requiring the state to take action against public districts that don’t sufficiently fight racism in schools, which the plaintiffs believe is required under the state constitution and federal law to protect Black and other racial minority students’ rights to a public education.
Sheryl Ring
| facebook.com
In motions filed Oct. 18, the district and state defendants separately asked Cook County Michael Mullen to dismiss the complaint.
“This is not to diminish plaintiffs’ concerns about inappropriate offensive behavior by students and members of the public,” according to the district defendants’ motion. “The board finds all forms of racism and discrimination abhorrent and will not tolerate it in its schools, yet it cannot be legally responsible under the Constitution for every offensive comment made on school property by a student or a member of the public, especially when there is no causal nexus between such comments and a policy or custom of the board that has the force of law and deprived a specific constitutional right.”
Among the parents’ allegations are that a white student told a Black student her skin was “the color of poop;” a white student told fellow students that when Donald Trump became president of the United States, all Black people would be removed from the country; white students have referred “to children of color using racial slurs, including the use of the ‘n-word;’ ” and a white student “made derogatory comments about Martin Luther King Jr. to a group of Black students,” among other alleged instances.
The district defendants characterized the parents’ complaint as focusing a majority of its factual allegations on how the school responded to demands for anti-racism training, more classroom time spent on Black, Hispanic/Latino and Asian history months, increased used of textbooks by minority authors, hiring more minority teachers and an equity officer and removing on-campus police officers.
“While there is no doubt that plaintiffs are passionate about these issues,” the district defendants argued, “this court is not the proper venue to air grievances about curriculum or hiring decisions for which the Legislature, by way of the Illinois School Code, has delegated sole authority to the school board.”
The school defendants also said the parents’ complaint is fatally flawed because it names the superintendent and board members in their official capacities without naming the school board itself and without identifying personal conduct of any individual that could be construed as violating constitutional rights.
“Individual school administrators and board members lack policymaking authority on behalf of a school board, and thus their individual actions cannot be used to establish any liability under the constitution,” according to the motion.
And even if the parents cured those and other pleading deficiencies, the school defendants argued, dismissal is appropriate because the complaint doesn’t adequately allege an official school board policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations.
“Simply pointing out isolated alleged incidents such as a parent cutting in line at a school board meeting or students using a racial slur is not enough to establish a widespread practice of constitutional violations that is so permanent and well-settled as to constitute ‘custom usage’ with the force of law,” according to the motion.
The state defendants argued the parents’ complaint makes no allegations against Pritzker beyond a blanket assertion he “is responsible for overseeing the operation of the Illinois executive and administrative branches of government” and said their due process claims should fail for lack of an allegation the state deprived the children’s right to attend a free public school.
“Plaintiffs instead take issue with the quality of their educational environment,” the state argued, “a matter that Illinois courts will not adjudicate.”
The Itasca firm of Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & John is representing the District 72 defendants
Sheryl Ring, of McHenry, is representing the parents.
Tanya Bouley, of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, is representing the state defendants.