in many of its schools. Despite being on notice of pervasive racially hostile incidents across
District schools, frequently the District ignored parent, student, and advocate complaints
completely, dismissed them as “inconclusive” even when corroborated by other witnesses, or
merely told the harassing student(s) not to do it again, even when the student had harassed Black
or Asian-American students previously. See, e.g., Davis, 526 U.S. at 645 (finding a school district
may be liable for peer-on-peer harassment when its deliberate indifference makes
students vulnerable to continued harassment); DiStiso, 691 F.3d at 245 (admonishing that no one
should argue “that a reasonable response to repeated complaints of repeated student racial name-
calling was to do nothing.” (emphasis in original)); Flores, 324 F.3d at 1136 (principal was
deliberately indifferent to harassment complaint when he investigated some, but not all accused);
Zeno, 702 F.3d at 669 (when discipline does not deter the harassment, it is deliberately indifferent
to proceed with that same response and not more); Vance, 231 F.3d at 261–62 (continuing to use
efforts that have proven ineffective, such as “talking to the offenders,” is clearly unreasonable).
At times, the District told Black and Asian-American students not to be so sensitive or made
excuses for harassing students by explaining that they were “not trying to be racist.” See Bryant,
334 F.3d at 932 (“[A] school where [racial slurs and epithets] occur[] unchecked is utterly failing
in its mandate to provide a nondiscriminatory educational environment.” (quoting Monteiro, 158
F.3d at 1034)). Several teachers admitted to hearing students use the n-word,
6
and did not report
it to administrators. Their response: telling students to “watch their language.” See DiStiso, 691
F.3d at 244–45 (reasonable jury could find teacher was deliberately indifferent to complaints of
racial harassment where she “offered no evidence that she ever spoke to a kindergarten student
about racial name-calling” and principal did not conduct “a ‘full’ investigation” of the incidents
and merely spoke to the teacher (emphasis in original)). Likewise, in October 2019, a white
student dressed as Hitler for Halloween, marched in a parade throughout his elementary school
while performing the Nazi salute, and no school staff stopped him or reported his costume and
behavior to school administration.
7
The District designated a “compliance officer” to receive complaints of racial harassment
and to conduct investigations into those complaints.
8
Our investigation revealed complaints of
race-based harassment that parents or other staff elevated to the District compliance officer, but
the District failed to investigate or otherwise respond to. See Zeno, 702 F.3d at 671 (finding
district-level civil rights compliance officer’s failure to investigate racial harassment complaint
clearly unreasonable). The District also improperly relied on an SRO’s determination that students
6
Several incidents illustrate District staff’s insensitivity to the harm of racial epithets. For example, during one of our
focus groups, a Black student reported that he told the assistant principal that a white student called him the n-word.
During a discussion about the incident, that assistant principal repeated the word “n***er”, in full, to this Black
student. Cf. Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 185 (4th Cir. 2001) (“Far more than a mere offensive
utterance, the word ‘n***er” is pure anathema to African–Americans. Perhaps no single act can more quickly alter
the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment than the use of an unambiguously racial
epithet such as ‘n***er’ by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing
Rodgers v. Western–Southern Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 668, 675 (7th Cir. 1993), overruled on other grounds
by Burlington N. and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)). Minutes later, the same assistant principal
repeated the word to DOJ attorneys. At another school, a teacher told DOJ she intervened upon hearing “two colored
people saying they are n***ers.” At yet another school, while being interviewed by DOJ’s investigative team, a staff
member was perplexed at how to describe a Black student’s race. She compared the student to a Black attorney on
DOJ’s investigative team, referring to them both as “colored.”
7
See, e.g., Allyson Chiu, ‘Intolerably offensive’: Boy’s Nazi costume at elementary school Halloween parade sparks
outrage, W
ASHINGTON POST (Nov. 4, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/04/nazi-costume-
utah-elementary-school-creekside/.
11IR-100 Nondiscrimination Policy and Complaint Procedures, D
AVIS SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES (Jan. 26, 2016).
6
8