In a ruling against the Laguna Beach school district, a court ordered that an unlawful suspension be struck from the record of a student disciplined for his part in a racially charged incident during the winter break last year.
The student, who is not identified in court documents, was one of five Laguna Beach High School boys that stopped at the house of a black classmate, tossed a watermelon at the front porch and yelled racially insensitive remarks before they fled Dec. 27, 2016. Police treated the matter as a possible hate crime, court records say.
Today, an attorney for the youth involved in the case was to return to court to ask Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Bauer to compel the school district to comply with the judgment to expunge the student’s record even though administrators intend to fight the decision.
Attorneys representing the school district filed a notice Dec. 11 to appeal the Oct. 19 judgment.
In his decision, Judge Bauer disagreed with the district’s view that it has the authority to punish students for events occurring “at any time.” He cited the state Education Code, which limits the activities that may be the subject of school discipline to those taking place on school grounds, during the school day or during a school sponsored activity.
“The court finds the District’s statutory twist to be so unreasonable that any further discussion is unnecessary,” the ruling reads.
The district’s Nov. 3 notice seeking a new trial said the judge erred in interpreting the education code and in reviewing an administrator’s decision to punish the student. “Under applicable law, courts are required to give substantial deference to school administrators when reviewing their student discipline decisions, and the Board has reason to believe the judge essentially substituted his judgment for that of district administrators, contrary to that legal standard,” says a statement released Wednesday by district spokeswoman Leisa Winston, noting that the judge seemed to discount the impact of the incident on the student whose home was attacked.
“The appeal seeks to reinforce the District’s duty to protect the right of students to a school experience free of harassment and intimidation, in addition to its ability to justify and even require temporarily removing from campus those who have impacted that right,” the statement says.
Board President Jan Vickers added in the statement that the decisions involving student discipline and the appeal of the court ruling “have been driven by our commitment to our students and our community.”
The district’s decision to fight the ruling portends consequences for the student in the litigation, a senior who fears the three-day suspension may harm his chances of getting into college. The boy did not report the suspension as required on his college applications or address the suspension in his admission essays, his mother says in a court declaration. High school counselor Jeannie Brown told her on Nov. 13 his record still listed a suspension for “hostile educational environment.”
The deadline to submit applications for freshman admission to the UC and Cal State systems was Nov. 30, while the common application required by private schools is due Jan. 1.
None of the parents of the other disciplined students, all of whom were minors at the time, have taken similar legal steps. One is no longer enrolled in the district. In February, parents of two of the boys issued a public apology for their progeny’s “offensive and unacceptable” behavior.
Maurice Possley and his wife, Cathleen Falsani, who are white, believe their adopted teen-age son Vasco was targeted because he is black. In January, Vasco’s parents denounced publicly what they described as an act of hatred and urged district officials to act, saying silence would encourage “similar corrosive behavior,” court records say. School discipline was meted out shortly thereafter.
An appeal of a court ruling typically halts a judge’s decision from taking effect, but if that delay causes harm, the court can allow the judgment to be imposed. “The trial judge has the option to unfreeze it,” explained Mark S. Rosen, a Santa Ana attorney representing the unidentified student.
“Student Doe will suffer irreparable harm if the order is not followed,” Rosen said in a legal filing asking the judge for immediate relief. The hearing over the issue was to take place Thursday, Dec. 14. “They are standing up for their kid,” he said of his clients.
Rosen has also asked the court to hold district administrators, including Superintendent Jason Viloria, in contempt of court for failing to act on the court’s initial order. A hearing over the contempt motion is scheduled for Monday, Dec. 18.
If the district complies with the order, Rosen said he would drop the contempt motion.
This story was updated with new information Dec. 14.
Correction:
The article, “Student Wins to Overturn Discipline” in the Dec. 15, 2017, edition inaccurately reported a statement about the student’s college application and his omission from it of a school suspension. The story erred by failing to provide a timeline as to when the student’s mother described the application and its accuracy in a court declaration. The declaration was made a month after a judge ruled the suspension unlawful and ordered it struck from the student’s record, thus removing the need of the student to mention the discipline.
The editor regrets the error.
I think there are all sorts of ways we can teach our kids to become better people, but the District disregarding the law is NOT one of them, especially given the fact that the Superintendent will be held in contempt of court if the District does not follow the judge’s orders. The judge made the ruling, and by all accounts the decision is legally sound. Is it fair? Probably not. But it is the LAW. What point is the District trying to prove — that they can outspend the parents? The District needs to let this one go and move on from this unfortunate incident. We are a culture obsessed with power and honor and less concerned about dignity and forgiveness. These kids did something extraordinarily wrong, and it was outrageously egregious and embarassing given Laguna’s history of acceptance and inclusivity. But let’s not satisfy our appetites for dominance and punishment and work towards healing and doing everything we can to make sure these events never happen again in our community through outreach, education and training. Let’s move forward.
EATandBeMerry, are you a family friend of the suspended student? Because you’re trying to minimize the seriousness of the offense behind a bunch of trite statements.
You claim that we must accept the judge’s decision because “it is the LAW.” But his decision is not the final word, as District has appealed his decision. Appeal court(s) will ultimately decide this issue. I do agree with you that the judge’s decision is legally sound, but the law is not so ironclad that other courts won’t give alternate interpretation(s) and may decide to defer to the school district when it comes to the suspension decisions.
Nevertheless, whether the district’s actions are legally defensible, I applaud the superintendent and the board members for taking a strong stance against bigotry and intolerance. You state, “We are a culture obsessed with power and honor and less concerned about dignity and forgiveness.” In your comments, you don’t make specific reference to the victim. You know, the black male student? Have you given a thought to the dignity of the victim? During my high school days, I did a research project on the history of lynching. Some of the pictures and descriptions of mutilations are just sickening. I’m not trying to equate this incident to lynching, but merely to point out how terrifying and agonizing it must have been for that black student to be confronted by a group of white students with hostile racist intents.
You also talk about the need for forgiveness. I agree. But shouldn’t forgiveness be preceded by repentance from the wrongdoer(s)? Of the five perpetrators, one left the district. That implies that there was some shame, remorse, or possibly embarrassment—an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. The families of other two perpetrators issued public apologies over their sons’ “offensive and unacceptable” behavior. (These parents probably made their sons tell the district officials what had happened and who was the ringleader of this incident.) The fourth is quiet. That leaves us with the fifth perpetrator, the one suing the district.
The article doesn’t mention whether he apologized, but I’m sure he or his family did as a matter of public relations ploy. The fact that they’re suing the district tells me that the family is not truly sorry. Wouldn’t the morally correct action have been for the parents to tell their son that he would have to bear the consequences of his action, including being rejected by colleges?
This excerpt from the L.A. Times about Mark Rosen (family’s lawyer) is instructive: “Rosen argued that a suspension on the student’s record could affect his chances of being accepted to college.” Apparently, junior lied on his college application by stating that he had never been suspended by the school and is now using the legal system to expunge his records, thus covering up the lie.
So, EATandBeMerry, I have no desire to “satisfy appetites for dominance and punishment.” But I am depressed that this kid will probably “win” in the courtroom, get into his choice of college, and go through life believing that character and ethics don’t matter—as long as he has parents’ financial resources to exploit loopholes in the law. But I am proud of the superintendent and the board members for choosing to do the right thing.
[…] disputed school record belongs to an unnamed 18-year-old called “Student Doe” in a Superior Court case filed by his […]
[…] Board President Jan Vickers boldly defended LBUSD defiance of a state court ruling, insisting attempted nullification of a judicial order was […]