White teacher gets new life for race discrimination suit

By Jonathan Bilyk | Legal Newsline
The Center Square

Saying recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have changed the legal calculus, a Chicago federal judge has ruled a white Evanston middle school teacher can move ahead with her lawsuit accusing the Evanston school district that employed her of illegally promoting racial division and discrimination within their schools through “anti-racism” policies and curriculum.

In the June 23 ruling, U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. said the Supreme Court rulings “make clear” that racial “segregation” is always “problematic” under the law, no matter if it is being practiced to help “a socially disadvantaged group” or correct “longstanding gaps and inequities” caused by past “societal discrimination.”

So, the judge said, teacher Stacy Deemar has a valid claim against Evanston-Skokie School District 65 for creating a “hostile” anti-white work environment in schools.

The ruling reverses Tharp’s decision from nearly two years ago, which, at the time, had tossed Deemar’s lawsuit against District 65.

Deemar had filed suit against District 65 in the fall of 2021. The lawsuit, at the time, also named administrators at the school district as co-defendants. That included then-superintendent Devon Horton.

Horton departed District 65 to become superintendent of Georgia’s DeKalb County School District. However, in 2025, federal prosecutors indicted Horton on charges including wire fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion and other counts. The criminal charges were related to allegations that Horton ran a kickback scheme while at District 65.

Deemar’s lawsuit, however, does not address the charges against Horton.

Rather, Deemar’s lawsuit centers on the efforts at District 65 under Horton and his successors to implement teacher training programs and curriculum 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 has worked in District 65 schools since 2002.

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.”

For instance, Deemar has asserted District 65 has forced teachers and staff into “race-based affinity groups” for mandatory diversity and anti-racism training; excluded white staff members from special groups created for the districts’ black, Latino and Asian staffers; and excluded white staffers from certain opportunities for grants and professional development.

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 race-centered programming.

The district further has argued the programs are not actual illegal discrimination. Rather, they argue the programs should be understood as being meant to elevate historically “marginalized” group, such as black and Latino students and educational professionals.

In 2024, Tharp sided with District 65, agreeing that, even though the district grouped students and teachers by race, and treated them differently on that basis, Deemar couldn’t prove she was actually harmed by those policies and programs.

Deemar, however, then amended her complaint, refining her points.

In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered key decisions concerning racial discrimination in education, particularly in the case known as Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard College.

In that decision, the high court rejected attempts by Harvard and their allies to argue that racial discrimination against whites and some other supposedly privileged or high-achieving racial groups, like Asians, should be permitted in order to address longstanding “societal discrimination” and promote other, marginalized racial groups.

And now, that decision, among other markers laid down by the Supreme Court, has also now breathed life into Deemar’s legal claims, Tharp said.

“Defendants maintain that Deemar has not suffered an equal protection violation,” Tharp said, hearkening back to his 2024 ruling. “They argue that Brown v. Board of Education, … only stands for the proposition that segregation can be wrongful, not that it always is.”

However, Tharp said the Harvard ruling makes clear that such an approach is no longer allowed when considering equal protection claims, like Deemar’s. Rather, he said, the standard now is to default to so-called the “anticlassification” legal theory, which holds “that the government can never classify based on race.”

“… For Deemar’s purposes, the anticlassification reading of Brown must win out,” Tharp said. “Though the defendants argue that they were attempting to ‘address the longstanding gaps and inequities’ between racial groups, the Supreme Court has instructed that ‘ameliorating societal discrimination does not constitute a compelling interest that justifies race-based state action.’

“The segregated meetings and racial affinity groups that Deemar alleges were closed to white people, then, cannot withstand strict scrutiny.”

So, Tharp said, under that new understanding, Deemar can proceed with at least her claim accusing District 65 of violating her rights to equal protection.

Tharp, however, said Deemar’s claims for educational discrimination under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act still fall short.

While acknowledging that Deemar’s claims involve racial discrimination in schools, he said Deemar’s claims are entirely related to workplace discrimination, not academic discrimination.

Following the ruling, Deemar’s legal team from the nonprofit constitutional advocacy organization, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, applauded Tharp’s ruling.

In a post on social media platform X, the SLF partially credited the “victory” to intervention from the Department of Education under President Donald Trump.

“The ruling allows the case to continue and reinforces a fundamental principle: racial discrimination and segregation have no place in American public education,” the SLF said in its post.

They added a statement from SLF President Kim Hermann, who said: “The Court agrees that segregation practices – excluding white teachers from meetings, DEI trainings, and affinity groups – by Chicago area schools is a clear violation of our Constitution. Enough is enough. We made an Equal Protection claim against segregated staff meetings and affinity groups in this case to protect teachers and educators there. The Court agreed with our filing and states that any discrimination is too much.”

Deemar has been represented in the case by Hermann and attorneys Braden H. Boucek 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.