New Mexico Supreme Court hears arguments in case over APS teacher’s racial comments
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – On Monday, the New Mexico Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a discrimination lawsuit against Albuquerque Public Schools (APS). In the case, Johnson V. Board of Education, a student sued the public school system after a teacher called a Navajo student with fake blood on her cheek a “bloody Indian” during a Halloween class.
The incident occurred in 2018. The case has now made its way to the state supreme court, and the court is using it as a chance to teach students about the justice system by letting students attend the oral arguments in the case.
Texas-based oil company to pay New Mexico $24.5 million over pollution allegations
“It is important to us, my colleagues and myself, that New Mexico students understand the importance of the rule of law in our society, their government, and our court system,” Chief Justice David K. Thomson said before arguments began. “And hopefully, we may inspire a new generation of leaders.”
Roxie De Santiago stood before the Supreme Court justices to argue on behalf of APS.
“This case is not about whether the actions of the teacher was wrong. They were, in fact, wrong. There’s no question about that, and APS took immediate action to address that,” Roxie De Santiago said. “Before the court today is a question of whether or not the New Mexico Human Rights Act applies.”
New video shows derailed train explosion near AZ-NM border
Roxie De Santiago tried to raise doubt over whether or not the New Mexico Human Rights Act applies to the events at Cibola High School. She argued that within the context of the incident, there may be an exception to the law. Roxie De Santiago pointed to a 1981 case, Human Rights Com’n of NM v. Bd. of Regents, that decided that a university’s method of administering an academic program does not count as “public administrations” for the New Mexico Human Rights Act.
In response to that, the Supreme Court justices questioned whether the latest case is actually similar to that 1981 case. They pointed out that universities operate differently than public high schools and that the 1981 case was not intended to be expanded beyond universities.
Leon Howard, the lawyer for student McKenzie Johnson, argued that the New Mexico Human Rights Act “encompasses all public educational establishments.”
“It’s inconceivable that while desegregation was happening in our country, that our legislature intended to exclude students. Instead, it used a phrase like, ‘any establishment’ [in the Human Rights Act],” Howard argued.
The Supreme Court justices asked Howard if that interpretation means the 1981 case noted before needs to be reconsidered. Howard argued that they don’t need to completely redo the 1981 case but that the court should first clarify that public schools count as “public accommodations” and then go on to clarify the distinction between free speech and discrimination.
The Supreme Court justices asked where the line is between teaching and discrimination when it comes to class lessons about racially charged history.
“It’s really when you go from the lesson, and you start zeroing out particular students,” Howard said. “It’s one thing to be able to teach the fraught history of this nation and to be able to say controversial things while you’re teaching lessons. And then it becomes harassment, it becomes discrimination when you look at a student and you lob a racial epithet directly at them.”
Now that the justices have heard arguments, they will consider the points made before they issue a ruling. There is no set timeline for them to do so.
“Albuquerque Public Schools trusts that our legal system will fully and fairly consider the legal arguments and the appropriate role for the judiciary in this matter. APS eagerly awaits the court’s decision, and we thank them for the opportunity to present the District’s case in oral argument,” APS said in a statement.
