FOIA Gras is a free newsletter run by Tom Hayden (FOIA GRAS LLC) that explores various topics in local Evanston Governance, especially around School District 65 (Evanston/Skokie). I publish and share all my data and reports. Subscribing is free, so please subscribe or share!

Share

First, for background, read the Evanston Roundtable Story on Deemar vs D65. You can read the original complaint by Ms. Deemar here. This is about a lawsuit brought by a District 65 Drama Teacher (at Nichols) alleging violations of her civil rights.

I am not a lawyer and not a legal expert, so please take my analysis with a grain of salt and let me know in the comments if I screwed anything up.

The Complaint & Southeastern Legal Foundation

The complaint is filed by an organization called the Southeastern Legal Foundation out of Roswell, Georgia. They describe their mission as;

Southeastern Legal Foundation is a national, nonprofit legal organization dedicated to defending liberty and Rebuilding the American Republic^®. Since 1976, SLF has been going to court for the American people when the government overreaches and violates your constitutional rights.

First off, as a matter of opinion; anyone who trademarks the term “American Republic^®” is a jerk.

Second, They appear to be a relatively well funded conservative legal operation. You can read their IRS 990 Form here which has all their financial data. It is worth noting that they describe their business to the IRS quite differently than to the public;

AS A PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM, THE ORGANIZATION’S PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR PLAINTIFFS IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS INVOLVING ISSUES OF CONSTITUTION LAW OR SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST ON A ON-FEE BASIS, AND TO MAKE GRANTS FOR SUCH PURPOSE; THE ORGANIZATION ALSO CONDUCTS NONPARTISAN STUDIES AND RESEARCH..

They have about $7m in net assets and in 2021 fund-raised about $1.7m dollars, probably on the case I am discussing. Their claims of non-partisanship ring quite hollow, you can read the biography of the SLF’s founder, Todd Young.

He has worked closely in an advisory capacity with former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, former independent counsel Judge Kenneth Starr, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and various members of Congress and state governors and attorneys general.

Say what you will but there are few people more partisan than Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich. I am generally someone who is in favor of free speech legal causes, for instance I have donated to FIRE in the past. However, this organization appears to be part of the modern Republican party outrage-to-fundraising machine. They appear to be quite successful at it, raising >$1.5 million a year.

Ignoring the plaintiff’s politics here, let’s discuss the merits of the case.

Ms. Deemar’s Claim

I was always under the impression that the claim here was about compelled speech. I thought Ms. Deemar was compelled to participate in some form of speech and not doing so resulted in some form of punishment. This is incorrect.

In fact, Ms. Deemar’s claim boils down to the following, much weaker argument;

• The District held professional development sessions conducted by a consultant, Courageous Conversations (Beyond Diversity) in the 2018-19 school year. There was a mandatory 2-day training for all staff.

• The District suggested but not require that she read a book, White Fragility. They sent out some emails about the book with questionnaires and surveys.

• The District has optional mailing lists and groups for BIPOC-only staff members (affinity groups) to discuss racial issues and in some cases, BIPOC staff members had suggested they had been treated poorly by white staff members.

• Therefore; this created a hostile work environment and Ms. Deemar was “deprived of adequate professional development” and as such, her rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment were violated.

As far as I can tell, Ms. Deemar presents no specific evidence that she was denied a promotion or otherwise had her rights infringed upon in a specific way. You can inspect her evidence yourself, by viewing her Declaration. Some of the evidence she submits doesn’t even strike me as particularly hostile to her. For instance, consider the email below regarding the creation of the King Arts Black Affinity group, which contains some valid and specific claims of racist treatment.

Current Status of Case

The case is still open and ongoing. Here’s a rough timeline:

• 2018-19: Time of the Beyond Diversity Training

  2

• 06/29/2021 Complaint Filed. Read the complaint.

• 08/30/2021 District 65 filed a motion to dismiss, citing Ms. Deemar didn’t have standing. She wasn’t in any of the training covered and didn’t participate in any of the things actually covered in her complaint. Read the motion.

• Rest of 2021-22: Back and forth arguments about the above motion. Ms. Deermar’s lawyers contend that the support of the motion, by Ms. Beardsley should be thrown out for hearsay. Read the reply.

• 09/28/2022: Judge finally makes an order on the dismissal, requesting further analysis from both parties. He requests information how this case pertains to another case called Monteiro vs Temple Union High School, which I detail below. Read the order.

• 10/19/2022 Read the Deemar Response.

• 11/09/2022 Read the District 65 Response.

• 02/28/2023 Awaiting order from the Judge on Dismissal

Deemar’s Argument is Anti-Free Speech

The Monteiro vs Temple Union High School case is interesting and has echoes in our current political environment. The case involved the reading of Huckleberry Finn. Upon reading the book and upon discovering racial epithets, some of the white students began bullying the black students. The plaintiffs sought to have Huckleberry Finn banned from the school curriculum.

The Monteiro ruling, you should read if you have time is very thoughtful and Edweek summarizes;

Ruled unanimously that districts have a duty under federal law to eliminate any racially hostile environment in schools, including racial harassment of a student by other students.

That duty does not extend, however, to eliminating assigned reading materials--such as Huckleberry Finn--that students or parents might deem racially offensive.

Ms. Deemar’s claim appears to be: there are all these things being said which theoretically may result in racial harassment of white people, including me. Unlike in Monteiro, she presents no evidence that such harassment is occurring, just that it could occur. Her suggested solution is to suppress the speech of other District employees (the professional development staff and colleagues that were complaining about legitimate cases of racism).

I Was Wrong on This

I believe Ms. Deemar’s argument here is detestable and anti-free speech, regardless of opinions on the curriculum, “CRT”, or professional development content. Suppressing the political speech of your colleagues because it makes you feel like something could, in theory, result in racial harassment is bad. Secondarily, even the individuals who offered professional development (the School Board, the Administration, and even the consultants) have rights to political speech, even if you don’t like it.

I’m no legal scholar but the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause isn’t designed shield you from other’s speech you disagree with. It also does not guarantee that you will get professional development content that you think is good. In this case, she had the option (and allegedly chose to) not participate yet continues this absurd case with the District at great expense.

I wrote an Op-ed in the Evanston Roundtable in 2022 and included this section;

A quick review of the District’s monthly “List of Bills” shows avoidable wasteful spending, such as 24/7 security for Administrators, no-bid contracts on technology and equity curriculum, and legal expenses related to Ms. Deemar’s first amendment suit against the District. 

I was wrong on this. I have come to believe the District’s argument here is the just one, in favor of free speech and individual rights. Her case, and the case made by her “small government” lawyers is an argument in favor of censorship and suppression over a theoretical boogie-man.

If you don’t like the speech of District employees or professional development programs, we have an entire system devoted towards changing that. You’ve got two options:

1. Your own speech. It was free to start this substack.

2. Voting.

Dragging the District into a multi year lawsuit over this is stealing money from our children and (functionally) giving it to right wing conservative causes.