A federal judge has tossed, for now, a lawsuit accusing an Evanston school district of illegally promoting racial division and discrimination within their schools through "anti-racism" policies and curriculum, as the judge said the white middle school teacher who brought the action has yet to show that she has been personally harmed by the district's actions.
On Aug. 9, U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. dismissed the legal action brought by plaintiff Stacy Deemar against Evanston/Skokie District 65. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the judge is giving Deemar an opportunity to revise her lawsuit and perhaps address the shortcomings identified by the judge in her legal pleadings.
The dismissal order comes after nearly three years of proceedings in federal court in the action.
Deemar had filed suit against District 65 in the fall of 2021. The lawsuit also names as defendants then-District 65 Superintendent Devon Horton, among other administrators.
According to court documents, Deemar has worked in District 65 schools since 2002 and is now considered a part-time faculty member.
The lawsuit takes aim at District 65's implementation of teacher training programs and curriculum in recent years to promote "anti-racism" and "racial equity" goals in the district's schools and classrooms.
District 65 operates 18 schools, with more than 8,000 students from preschool to eighth grade.
Deemar's complaint asserts the curriculum and training programs create an anti-white environment, in which "whiteness" is treated as negative and wrong, while "non-white racial identity" carries "positive traits."
Deemar's lawsuit claims these District 65 curriculum, program and policies encourage racism and discrimination towards white people among the district's students and staff.
She has noted she and others were required to attend "equity-oriented trainings and staff meetings" for years, while receiving emails from administrators promoting racially divisive books and programs, or posing "discussion questions like, 'How will you ensure that when common white patterns surface (distancing, intellectualizing, rationalizing), you will work to identify and challenge them, rather than ignore or avoid them?'"
Deemar said District 65 for years has grouped its educators and students by race and "assigned moral characteristics because of skin color," infusing the working and learning environment in the schools with "racial hostility."
Deemar has asserted this amounts to illegal discrimination against her and other white employees of the district.
Deemar is not seeking any significant money damages. Rather, the lawsuit seeks a court order requiring District 65 to cease such alleged racially divisive programming and policies, along with nominal damages of $1.
In response, District 65 has defended its policies and programs, arguing Deemar shouldn't be allowed to sue because she never "personally suffered an injury" from the district's promotion of "anti-racism." They said Deemar has misinterpreted its programs and positions, which the district said are intended to rectify racial inequities and disparities among its students.
District 65 further argued it is Deemar who is seeking to violate the district's First Amendment rights, by seeking to use her lawsuit to win court orders restricting teachers' and administrators' ability to discuss race in classrooms and faculty training sessions and other meetings.
Deemar denied those accusations, saying she only seeks to end the "hostile environment" against white people in District 65 and require the district to abide by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee to equal protection under the law for the district's white and non-white teachers and students.
After more than a year of deliberations, Tharp sided with District 65, saying Deemar lacked legal standing to bring her lawsuit because Deemar can't show the district converted its campaign against "whiteness" into harmful acts of discrimination against her for being white.
The judge noted Deemar remains employed by the district. And the judge said Deemar can't show she was ever forced to attend any faculty meetings in which "staff members were segregated by race" or any other racially discriminatory workplace activities.
The judge noted Deemar has alleged the schools appear replete with messaging against "whiteness," including District 65 choosing to define racism as being "created for groups historicially or currently defined as white being advantaged, and groups historically defined as non-white ... as disadvantaged," adding "racism is not mere 'racial prejudice,' but rather prejudice 'and power.'"
The judge further noted Deemar pointed to lesson plans and teacher training which asserted white supremacy forms "the bedrock" of Western "'society and its institutions' and white people 'infuse their racial prejudice into the laws, policies, practices, and society.'"
In his ruling, Tharp said it was not his job as a judge to decide if such statements are true or false, or "to evaluate their legitimacy" or their place in District 65's classrooms and faculty meetings.
"The Equal Protection Clause requires the states to treat each person as an individual and not a mere by-product of the social categories to which he or she belongs," Tharp wrote.
"And cases stemming from governmental failures to abide by that requirements are appropriate for judicial resolution; courts are well suited to identify and remedy injuries where people are treated differently because of their immutable characteristics, i.e., discriminated against.
"But Deemar has not persuaded the Court that the Equal Protection Clause enables federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over grievances about whether and how states can acknowledge the existence of social categories - or stake out claims about the origins and nature of discrimination pertaining to those social categories - without ever actually acting on those ideas by subjecting any individuals to some sort of differential, harmful treatment."
The judge also rejected Deemar's claims District 65's curriculum, programs and policies had created a racially hostile and discriminatory learning environment in the school.
While the judge said Deemar may be able to revise her lawsuit to possibly press claims that District 65 created a hostile work environment, Tharp said Deemar has no standing to sue on behalf of students who may experience a racially-charged learning environment.
The judge noted Deemar's lawsuit marks a "case of first impression," saying it is the first time a teacher is attempting to bring a hostile educational environment claim under federal civil rights laws. To this point, such actions have been reserved exclusively to students themselves.
While legal precedent may "suggest that a teacher can bring some types of claims" under federal civil rights law, "it does not confer upon a teacher the right to bring any sort of cause of action under the statute in their capacity as a teacher..."
"No matter how severe or abusive her environment was, it could not have plausibly denied her (Deemar) access to educational benefits because she does not allege that she was a student at the school," Tharp wrote.
In his decision, Tharp said he opted to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice because he said "it is not inconceivable that Deemar may be able to supplement her pleadings" to establish standing to move forward with her discrimination and hostile educational environment claims.
The judge did not set a deadline for Deemar to amend her complaint.
District 65's former superintendent Horton departed the school district this spring for a school administration post in Atlanta, Georgia. District 65 is now led by Superintendent Angel Turner. Turner previously served as Assistant Superintendent of Schools and the district's Director of Literacy.
Deemar is represented in the case by attorneys Braden H. Boucek, Kimberly S. Hermann and Benjamin I.B. Isgur, of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, of Roswell, Georgia; and Whitman H. Brisky and Judith A. Kott, of Mauck & Baker, of Chicago.
District 65 and its officials are represented by attorneys Nicki B. Bazer and Michael A. Warner , of the firm of Franczek P.C., of Chicago.