This is about the rapes in Loudoun schools perpetrated by a biological boy self-identified as a transgender girl. After he raped the first teenage girl, he was transferred into another school, where the accusation of the previous rape was concealed from the parents, and the rapist, as an allegedly transgender person, was permitted to enter girls' bathrooms. Moreover, the school superintendent knowingly lied to the parents about the existence of any danger posed by transgender boys. Furthermore, he had the father of the first rape victim arrested for trying to warn the parents about the predator. All that resulted in the 2nd rape of a teenage girl by the same perpetrator.

This reminds me of the of the catholic priests who molested kids and got transferred from one church to another to molest again unsuspected parishioners.

First question, is the school superintendent liable, criminally and/or civilly, for the 2nd rape? But for his concealment of the 1st rape the 2nd one would be unlikely to happen. If he would warn the 2nd school the parents there they could have taken precautions and prevent the 2nd rape.

Ditto the county liability. In the case of catholic priests whose molestation history was concealed the church had to answer for knowingly putting parishioners in danger. Should the county be held responsible too, or sovereign immunity would kick in?

Another question, does the father of the 1st rape victim have a civil rights violation claim against the county? The school board not only lied to the public (which is not unusual), but also knowingly slandered him as a transphobe and had him arrested for shouting to the other parents what the school board knew to be the truth, the truth that contradicted their political agenda.

Finally, despite the public outrage the school superintendent remains in his position of considerable power over the kids and refuses to resign. Does the public have any power to remove an appointed official?

  • 3
    Is there a reason you have put quote marks around the word transgender other than to imply this is not a valid or legitimate state of being?
    – Nij
    Oct 18 '21 at 23:31
  • 5
    I would also note that you appear to have misgendered the perpetrator who is a transgender girl, not a transgender boy, which makes the narrative confusing.
    – ohwilleke
    Oct 19 '21 at 0:06
  • 3
    Just a note that this question misrepresents the facts as reported in the news story. I started to fix it, but the errors are so pervasive that correcting them would likely make the answer we've got make no sense.
    – bdb484
    Oct 19 '21 at 13:21
  • 4
    @Michael It seems that you assume that only males can or will rape females. This is incorrect, even where no transgender issues are present. There have been cases of biologically female, cis-gendered women who have raped other women, although of course male-on-female rapes are far more common. You also seem to assume that the accused is guilty, although there has been no judicial determination of that as yet. Oct 19 '21 at 16:01
  • 3
    @Michael, we are indeed not in a court of law. But stating that someone has committed a crime is per se defamation in most jurisdictions unless the maker of the statement can prove it true. As for quotes, for future reference, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes about this usage. Oct 19 '21 at 16:19

I'll start with a list of issues presented and also note at the outset that the question correctly notes that both the school district (which is an entity distinct from the county), and the superintendent of schools, are protected from civil liability to a significant extent by the doctrine of sovereign immunity which is outlined here. Two specific provisions bear particular note: an exclusion of liability for someone who has reported a suspected child abuse case, and immunity for a school teacher who acts in good faith with regard to supervision, care and discipline of students.

1. What duty does a public school board in the U.S., or do specific employees of that school board, have to prevent a violent crime from being committed by one student against another student, when that student has no prior history of serious misconduct?

Short of malice directed at a victimized student there is no liability under state law. There is also no well established constitutional right violated that could give rise to civil rights liability. Students commit crimes against each other all of the time and school officials are almost never responsible for those crimes.

2. What duty does a public school board in the U.S., or do specific employees of that school board, have to prevent a violent crime from being committed by one student against another student, when that student has a history of prior serious misconduct?

The legal standard is the same but the practical analysis might be more fact intensive. Still, outright malice directed towards a victim would pretty much be the applicable legal standard and is unlikely to be present in this case, absent awareness, for example, of conditions of probation or pre-trial release after the first case that weren't enforced.

3. Is a public school in the U.S. permitted or required by law to advise parents of students at the school that student transferring into the new school has a history of violent criminal conduct?

Juvenile justice law and educational privacy laws profoundly limit the extent to which a public school, or its officials are allowed to disclose that a student transferring into a school has a history of violent criminal conduct. There is no clear duty of the public school in the U.S. to disclose this fact broadly.

4. Is a statement by a superintendent to parents in a public school district that transgender girl does not pose a threat to cis-gender girls in restrooms an actionable fraud (and does it matter if there is a history of prior misconduct by a particular student in this case of which the superintendent was aware)?

The statement is not, in general, false. If it was made after knowledge of this particular student, that might be a different matter, but as noted above, there are severe legal limitations on what the board is allowed to say. It isn't inconceivable that the school board or superintendent could have said more than it did to at least some people. But there isn't a clear legal duty to do so.

It also isn't clear what the superintendent actually knew when he made a report to the school board even tough the information should have been shared with him. It is possible that only a lower level official in the school system had actual knowledge at that time.

5. What crime, if any, did the father of the first rape victim commit for trying to warn the parents about someone who attacked his daughter?

This is partially speculation, but the father appears to have been arrested for the manner in which he acted disturbing the peace, speaking out of turn, and refusing the leave a meeting when requested, rather than sharing the information per se.

6. Did the school superintendent commit a crime somehow connected to the second rape by concealing the risk posed by the student in question?

The school superintendent has a duty to report child abuse to authorities and failure to do so (if it was not done) would be minor crime.

My impression of the fact is that the first rape was reported to juvenile justice system officials and resulted in action being taken. So, it does not appear that this duty was breached. According to the article:

The boy was arrested and charged for the first assault in July but released from juvenile detention while prosecutors waited for DNA rape kit evidence to come back.

Loudoun County Commonwealth's Attorney Buta Biberaj says at the time they had no reason to believe the boy should have stayed in juvenile detention.

“If that case had gone forward and we were not able to substantiate beyond a reasonable doubt the allegations that were made by the victim, he would've been out anyway,” she said. “The best decision was made with the facts that were known."

This does not, however, give him criminal liability for a subsequent rape of one student by another in which he had not involvement sufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy to commit sexual assault which was the case here.

7. Does the school board have defamation liability for calling the father of the victim of the first rape a transphobe?

No. The school board has sovereign immunity from suits for money damages seeking to establish liability in relation to statements made in their official capacity, apparently in good faith. It also isn't clear that the statements made were actionable in the first place, or that such statements were even made by them.

The school board also does not appear to have had actual knowledge of what happened until a decisive school board meeting after the second assault.

8. Does the public have any power to remove an appointed official such as the superintendent in this context?

No. The political remedy is to elect a new school board that would select a different superintendent.

  • 2
    According to Obama's Dear Colleague's letter, Title IX imposes an obligation on educational institutions to take affirmative action to prevent rape. Oct 19 '21 at 3:25
  • 1
    Yes, Title IX appears to be the elephant in the room here. I don't think we can adequately answer the question without that analysis.
    – bdb484
    Oct 19 '21 at 13:23
  • 1
    @Acccumulation and bdb484 fair point. But it also imposes a non-discrimination duty, and taking affirmative action doesn't apply to unforeseeable actions of fellow students (the first offense). It certainly doesn't mandate particular actions here as the educational privacy v. Title IX obligations don't have clear or definitive resolution in this context.
    – ohwilleke
    Oct 19 '21 at 16:17
  • I didn't see anything in the question about the first offense. Something the OP elides, however, is the distinction between "this person has been accused of rape" and "it has been settled to the appropriate standard of proof that this person committed rape". Legal burdens are based on epistemology, not ontology. Oct 19 '21 at 20:23
  • 1
    "The school board not only lied to the public (which is not unusual), but also knowingly slandered him as a transphobe and had him arrested for shouting to the other parents what the school board knew to be the truth, the truth that contradicted their political agenda." This is not asking whether the initial rape constitutes grounds for a suit. Oct 20 '21 at 1:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.