“Deliberately Indifferent” Warning To Schools About Student on Student Harrassment

A Harsh Reality in Schools

School should be a place of safety and growth. For many students, however, it can instead become a daily struggle against bullying and harassment. The Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in C.M. v. Croswell-Lexington Schools illustrates both the severity of racial hostility some students endure and the steep legal standard families must meet to hold schools liable.

The Facts: Relentless Harassment

C.M., a Black student adopted by white parents, attended Croswell-Lexington Community Schools in Michigan from sixth through ninth grade. During that time, she was subjected to persistent and degrading racial abuse, including:

·       Being called the n-word and other racial slurs.

·       Physical assault tied to her race.

·       Taunts about her hair, including threats to rip out her weave.

·       Being told to “go back to the plantation and pick cotton.”

·       Being called a “penguin” because she was Black with white parents.

·       Seeing classmates wear Confederate symbols at school.

·       Hearing teachers make racially insensitive comments, such as labeling Black Lives Matter a “terrorist organization.”

These incidents created what the courts themselves described as a “painful factual backdrop” and an “unsettling” environment for C.M.

The School’s Response

Each time C.M.’s parents reported harassment, the district took some action. Records showed the school:

·       Investigated each reported incident.

·       Disciplined the offending students, often stopping the behavior with those individuals.

·       Contacted parents of the students involved.

·       Assigned adult monitors to walk C.M. between classes.

·       Passed an anti-racism resolution and launched a student advisory group.

Despite these steps, the harassment continued, often from new perpetrators.

The Lawsuit and Legal Standard

C.M.’s parents sued under:

·       Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race discrimination by schools receiving federal funds),

·       The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and

·       Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

The key legal question was whether the school’s response amounted to “deliberate indifference.” Under Supreme Court precedent, that means the response must be “clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances” and reflect an official decision not to remedy the harassment.

Both the District Court and the Sixth Circuit ruled for the school. They concluded that because the district consistently investigated, disciplined, and attempted protective measures, it could not be considered deliberately indifferent—even if those efforts were not completely effective.

Why This Matters in Tennessee

This case comes from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which also governs Tennessee. That makes its reasoning binding on our federal courts.

The decision underscores just how high the bar is for families: proving severe harassment alone is not enough. To succeed, parents must show the school chose not to act or responded in a way no reasonable school would.

For Tennessee schools, the ruling reinforces that good-faith investigations, discipline, and documented protective steps—even if imperfect—will generally defeat liability.

What This Means for Students and Families

·       For students: The protections against racial harassment are real, but the law focuses on whether schools respond reasonably, not whether harassment stops entirely.

·       For parents: Document every report. Keep copies of complaints, emails, and the school’s responses. This record is essential if the case moves to court.

·       For schools: Respond promptly, investigate thoroughly, and document every action. Policies should go beyond reacting to incidents and instead foster a culture where harassment is actively discouraged.

Final Thoughts

The courts recognized that C.M. suffered profoundly, yet still ruled the district met its legal obligations. This gap—between what feels like indifference to a victim and what qualifies as “deliberate indifference” under the law—should serve as a wake-up call.

For Tennessee schools, C.M. v. Croswell-Lexington is a reminder that it is not enough to react. Schools must be proactive, building inclusive environments where harassment is less likely to occur and where every report is taken seriously. Our students deserve more than a legal minimum—they deserve real safety and dignity.