2023-2024 Moot Court Problem

Table of Contents

Questions Presented................................................................................................................. 3
Constitutional Provisions......................................................................................................... 3
Fact Pattern...............................................................................................................................4
Case Appendix......................................................................................................................... 7
New Jersey v. T.L.O.............................................................................................................. 7
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding......................................................................9
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton................................................................................ 10
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v.
Earls....................................................................................................................................12
Ogletree v. Cleveland State University............................................................................... 13
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I)............................................................................. 15
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District.................................... 16
Washington v. Davis............................................................................................................ 17
Keyes v. School District No. 1............................................................................................ 18
Outline of Arguments............................................................................................................. 20
Argument for Richmond High School (Petitioner)............................................................ 20
Argument for Ted Higgins (Respondent)........................................................................... 21
Exhibits...................................................................................................................................23
Exhibit I: Richmond Demographic Report 2020-2023...................................................... 24
Exhibit II: Copy of Email from Richmond School District Superintendent...................... 25
Exhibit III: Globe Relevant Policies and Protocols............................................................26
Exhibit IV: Richmond High School Online Testing Policy................................................27
Exhibit V: Instructions for Street Art Final Project............................................................ 29
Exhibit VI: Picture of Graffiti Art...................................................................................... 30
Exhibit VII: Screenshot of Ted Higgins' Hand................................................................... 31
Exhibit VIII: Screenshot of Ted Higgins' Room................................................................ 32

1
 PUBLISHED

GREYHOUND SUPREME COURT

_____________________

No. 97-1998

_____________________

RICHMOND HIGH SCHOOL,

Petitioner

V.

TED HIGGINS,
Respondent

On Appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Greyhound Circuit

2
 Questions Presented
1. Did Richmond High violate Ted Higgins's Fourth Amendment rights when school
officials used room scans during an at-home exam to find paint, accused him of spraying
graffiti, and punished him for the graffiti?

2. Did Richmond High violate Ted Higgins's Fourteenth Amendment rights when school
officials conducted a search of his room, accused him of spray painting "Black Lives
Matter" on the school building, and suspended him from participating in school
extracurricular activities?

Constitutional Provisions
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supports by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AMENDMENT XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.

**Students should NOT address any potential 5th Amendment Miranda claims related to
the questioning in Principal Richard's office.**

3
 Fact Pattern

Richmond High School is a public high school in the wealthiest suburb in the state of
Greyhound. Before the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Richmond High was already a primarily
white educational institution (PWI). Due to inflation and a huge influx of city-dwellers who
moved to the suburbs during the pandemic, the housing prices in the Richmond High
neighborhood skyrocketed since 2020. This increased property taxes in the area, which are the
primary source of funding for the district. According to a pre-pandemic email sent by the
Richmond School Board Superintendent, the Board seemed largely receptive to redistricting
changes that would also increase the school's funding. Now that the neighborhood is gentrified,
racially diverse residents are largely absent from the community.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, all school activities during the 2020-2021 academic year went
online due to the public health crisis. Richmond High conducted all classes on Zoom and
administered exams using an online proctoring software called Globe. Approved by the
Richmond Metropolitan School District, Globe requires students to take exams from their homes
by recording the space in which the student takes the exam through two cameras–one through the
computer on which the student takes the exam and another from an additional electronic device,
such as a cellphone, tablet, or computer, that is placed behind the student during the exam. Since
running the software, Richmond has found Globe efficient and effective at ensuring academic
integrity. For the 2021-2022 school year, most of Richmond High's academics are back in
person, with a few exceptions. Thus, Globe is no longer required, but can be used at a teacher's
discretion.

Outside the Richmond High building, there is a beautiful school garden and outdoor space for
students and faculty to congregate for lunch and other activities. At the beginning of 2022,
school faculty noticed graffiti covering the building, tarnishing this beautiful outdoor space.
While the language of the graffiti was not offensive or obscene, it was all done in bright
lime-green spray paint. Notably, several of the pieces of graffiti art displayed political sayings,
including "Black Lives Matter."

Ted Higgins was a senior at Richmond High and identifies as both Black and Asian-American.
Ted is an avid sports fan and dreams about attending a university that will support him on his
journey to becoming a sports psychologist. Ted knew he wanted to be one of the lucky students
in Professor Beard's elective, Psychology of Professional Sports course through West Ham
University. Because Professor Beard was often out of the state to give guest lectures, he taught
the course remotely through Zoom. The course was held on Fridays at 1:00 p.m. Students were
able to attend remotely from home unless Professor Beard had previously informed them that the
class would be in person.

4
Additionally, Ted Higgins wanted a challenge, so he decided to take an elective art class, despite
having no artistic experience. Art 101 was taught by Ms. Rebecca. Throughout the year, Ms.
Rebecca introduced her students to various art expressions, including Street Art. The Street Art
unit culminated with a final project requiring students to create mini forms of Street Art.
Enrollment in Ms. Rebecca's class is not as diverse as the student population and she has voiced
her concerns at the staff meetings. Ted was apprehensive when the class started because most of
the other students took art classes outside of school, and he was the only Black student in Ms.
Rebecca's classes. By April 2022, however, Ted was finding his way and was surprised by his
true knack for art. As the Street Art final project approached, Ted asked Ms. Rebecca to borrow
some of the school's art supplies, like spray paint, to practice at home in preparation for the final
assignment. Ms. Rebecca was thrilled and happily permitted Ted to borrow supplies.
The final assignment for Ted's Psychology of Professional Sports class was an exam. Professor
Beard originally intended to administer the final exam in person, but due to a last-minute
conference out of state, he decided to administer it through Globe. Ted missed school the Friday
Professor Beard informed students that they would be taking the exam remotely.
That next Monday at 7:30 a.m. Ted and his Psychology of Professional Sports classmates
received an email reminding them that the final exam would be administered via Globe later that
day at 1:00 p.m. Surprised by this change, Ted quickly emailed Professor Beard and Principal
Richard about his hesitation with taking the exam online. Ted explained that he was unprepared
to do so and was concerned about having a private space to take the exam because he lived in a
small apartment with his parents and two sisters. Having received no reply by 12:40 p.m., Ted
quickly rushed home and downloaded the Globe software in preparation for the exam. Because
he felt like he had no other choice, Ted adhered to the Globe protocol, including completing the
room scan, and turned in his exam.
The school's policy was to spot-check room scans because they didn't have sufficient staffing to
review all of them. Ms. Jones, a staff member at Richmond High, proctored Professor Beard's
Psychology of Professional Sports final exam. She spot-checked several rooms, including Ted's.
She previously had overheard two students saying that Ted Higgins was the one who sprayed the
graffiti. Ms. Jones spotted a few cans of spray paint in Ted's room, including three wrapped in
plastic and one unwrapped lime green can. Ms. Jones also observed that Ted had smudges of
what appeared to be lime green paint on his left index finger.
Concerned that this may be evidence that Ted was the student responsible for the lime green
graffiti on campus, Ms. Jones rushed to Ms. Rebecca's classroom to ask her whether she had lent
Ted any of the school's lime green spray paint cans. Ms. Rebecca answered that she had.
However, Ms. Rebecca also stated that she had let almost all of her art students borrow spray
paint cans for the Street Art final project. In fact, she told Ms. Jones that lime green paint cans
were the most common color that the school owned. When Ms. Jones returned to her own office,

5
she quickly emailed Principal Richard and Professor Beard with a recording of Ted's room scan
and an explanation of her concern.
On Wednesday, Principal Richard was waiting for Ted outside of Ted's first class. "Mr. Higgins, I
need to speak with you immediately," exclaimed Principal Richard. Confused and scared, Ted
stated, "Okay, is everything okay?" Principal Richard sternly replied, "This conversation is better
suited for a private space. Come with me to my office." Ted merely shook his head and followed
Principal Richard to his office. Ted walked into Principal Richard's office, where Professor Beard
and Ms. Jones were already seated. Principal Richard shut the door behind him, leaving all four
in a closed room with the blinds closed.
"Mr. Higgins, with graduation around the corner, we really don't want there to be any problems
for you," stated Principal Richard. "Okay . . . did I do something wrong?" asked Ted. "Come on,
Ted, just 'fess up, we all saw the lime-green spray paint on your finger," Professor Beard
asserted. Ted sat there in silence, confused as to what was happening. "Look Ted, I proctored the
Psychology of Professional Sports exam. I saw your spray paint-covered finger and the spray
paint cans in the back of your room. This all points to you being the one who has graffitied our
school's outdoor space. Graffiti is against school policy and you will be punished for this action,"
explained Ms. Jones.
While Ted tried to process what was happening, and before he got the chance to explain himself,
Principal Richard interjected, "As your principal, I never want to prevent you from participating
in the fun activities that our school offers. However, I cannot let bad deeds go unpunished. This
Friday, when all the graduating seniors go to the premier league's soccer finals, you will be in
detention." In a state of shock, Ted responded "Wait, what?" Principal Richard stated, "Ted, do
not make this more difficult than it needs to be." Ted did not know how to respond. At this point,
Ms. Jones got up to open the door and let Ted out of the room. The whole interaction took nearly
ten minutes.
Ted brought suit against Richmond High in Greyhound District Court, alleging (1) that the
school violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably searching his room through the
Globe room scan and (2) that the school violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by
mistakenly targeting and punishing him for graffiti on the basis of his race. The Greyhound
District Court held for Ted on both issues, and Richmond High appealed to the Greyhound
Circuit Court. The Circuit Court upheld the District Court decision, finding for Ted on both
issues. Richmond High has now appealed to the Greyhound Supreme Court.

6
 Case Appendix
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
468 U.S. 235 (1985)
Facts: T.L.O. was a 14-year-old first-year high school student. One day, a teacher caught her and
a friend smoking in a school bathroom during the school day. The assistant vice principal,
Theodore Choplick, questioned T.L.O. about the incident, and T.L.O. denied smoking in the
bathroom. Choplick searched T.L.O.'s purse. Inside the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes,
cigarette rolling papers, a small amount of marijuana, a lot of one-dollar bills, a list of students,
and two letters implicating that T.L.O. was dealing marijuana. The school told the police who, in
turn, brought legal charges against T.L.O. At this point, T.L.O moved to suppress the items found
in her purse, arguing that the assistant vice principal's search violated her fourth amendment right
to privacy.
Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures
applies to searches conducted by public school officials, and, if so, whether the search at issue
violated the Fourth Amendment
Holding: The Fourth Amendment does apply to searches conducted by public school officials
because students do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public school, but such searches
must only meet reasonable suspicion (rather than the normal standard of probable cause). Under
the Fourth Amendment, a school official is permitted to search a student if there is reasonable
suspicion that the search will result in evidence of the student's violation of either the law or
school rules.
Reasoning: Reasonableness depends on the context of a search or seizure. In the school setting,
there is a substantial need for teachers, staff, and administrators to maintain order. A requirement
to obtain a warrant before searching a student suspected of a crime or an infraction of school
rules would unduly interfere with the school's need for swift and informal disciplinary
procedures. The governmental interests, weighed against the private interests, justifies an
exception to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause and instead allows
searches to be based on reasonable suspicion. A school search is reasonable if it is justified at its
inception and in its scope. The search's scope will be permissible if it is reasonably related to the
objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive. Here, both the initial search and further
search of the purse were justified because they were reasonable at the inception and in scope.
The assistant vice principal was justified in believing that T.L.O. might have possessed evidence
of a violation of a school rule in her purse after T.L.O. was caught smoking in the bathroom.
Further, the assistant vice principal was justified in continuing the search after finding the rolling
papers, because those are commonly used for drugs. Therefore, the search did not violate the
Fourth Amendment.

7
 Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding
557 U.S. 364 (2009)
Facts: Vice Principal Kerry Wilson discovered that students in the school were passing out
prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen. These pills were common pain
relievers that were equivalent to one Aleve pill. Wilson found some pills on the person of one
student, who stated that she received the pills from 13-year-old Savana Redding. Wilson
confronted Redding, and Redding denied having any knowledge of the pills. Wilson searched
Redding's backpack and did not find any more pills. Wilson then had a female school official
take Redding into the school nurse's office and perform a strip search. Redding was told to get
undressed down to her underwear and then pull out her bra and underwear and shake the items of
clothing to prove there were no pills located in them. Redding described this experience as
embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. No pills were discovered.
Redding sued the school district and several school officials for violating the Fourth Amendment
through her right to privacy.

Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits school officials from strip searching students
suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy

Holding & Reasoning: Under the Fourth Amendment and New Jersey v. T.L.O., a school official
may only search a student if the search is justified at its inception and the search is reasonable in
scope. A school official cannot strip search a student without a specific suspicion that the student
is hiding evidence in intimate places.
Under New Jersey v. T.L.O., a school official's warrantless search of a student must be reasonably
related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search. The search cannot be excessively
intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. Here, the vice
principal did not have any specific suspicion that Redding was hiding pills in intimate places.
Additionally, the pills Wilson found on the student who identified Redding as the supplier were
pain relievers and not illegal drugs. Thus, Wilson did not have any indication of danger to the
students from the power of the pills or their quantity. Additionally, Wilson did not have any
reason to believe Redding was hiding pills in her underwear. Therefore, the search exceeded the
permissible scope and violated the Fourth Amendment.

8
 Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
515 U.S. 646 (1995)
Facts: School District 47J in the town of Vernonia, Oregon decided to adopt a Student Athlete
Drug Policy ("the Policy"). The Policy authorized random urinalysis drug testing of students who
participate in the District's school athletics programs. District 47J operates one high school and
three grade schools in a small-town community, where school sports were important. Drugs had
not been a major problem in the District, but teachers and administrators did observe a sharp
increase in student drug use. In fact, student athletes were among the leaders of the drug culture
in the District. This caused the District's administrators particular concern, since drug use
increases the risk of sports-related injury.
Expert testimony at the trial confirmed that drugs have negative impacts on motivation, memory,
judgment, reaction, coordination, and performance. The Policy applies to all students
participating in interscholastic athletics. Students wishing to play sports are required to sign a
form consenting to the drug testing and must obtain the written consent of their parents. Athletes
are tested first at the beginning of their sport's season and then in addition, 10% of students are
randomly tested once per week. One fall season, Respondent James Acton, then a
seventh-grader, signed up to play football at one of the District's grade schools. However, he was
denied participation in the school's football program because he and his parents refused to sign
the testing consent forms, as required by the Policy.
Issue: Whether random drug testing of public school student athletes violate the reasonable
search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.
Holding & Reasoning: A public school does not violate the Fourth Amendment when it chooses
to randomly test students participating in its athletic programs for controlled substances. The
collection and testing of urine under the school policy is a search and thus subject to the Fourth
Amendment, and thus is only permissible if it is reasonable. The reasonableness of a search is
judged by "balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the
promotion of legitimate governmental interests."
In the case of high school athletes who are under State supervision during school hours, they are
subject to greater control than can be exercised over free adults. Student athletes also have a
lesser expectation of privacy than their peers who are not athletes, because locker rooms offer
little privacy and participating in athletics is voluntary and subjects those students to a greater
degree of regulation. The privacy interests compromised by urine samples are small since the
conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed only by
limited authorities. Thus, the governmental concern over the safety of minors under their
supervision overrides the minimal, if any, intrusion in student-athletes' privacy.

9
 Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls
536 U.S. 822 (2002)
Facts: The Board of Education of Independent School District (District) enacted a policy
requiring the District's students to be drug tested before participating in extracurricular activities.
The policy calls for the drug testing to be randomized as long as students participate in
extracurricular activities, and at any time the school has reasonable suspicion. Under the test's
requirements, students must provide a urine sample while being monitored from right outside the
bathroom stall. If the student tests positive, they will not be allowed to participate in
extracurriculars. The District must also keep the results of the test confidential and away from
law enforcement. Lindsay Earls, Daniel James, and their parents sued the District, claiming that
it violated the Constitution since the District did not identify a special need for the policy, did not
point out a proven problem to be resolved, and did not require individualized suspicion.
Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment allows students who participate in extracurricular
activities to be subjected to drug testing without a warrant or individualized reasonable
suspicion.
Holding & Reasoning: Under the Fourth Amendment, public school districts may require
students to submit to drug testing to participate in extracurricular activities without a warrant or
individualized reasonable suspicion.
In general, the reasonableness of a search under the Fourth Amendment must be assessed by
balancing students' privacy rights against the achievement of the school's legitimate goals. In
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, the Court ruled that students (especially student athletes)
have a reduced expectation of privacy and are often required to submit to medical exams,
vaccinations, and other reasonable intrusions for the health and safety of all. Here, unlike in
Vernonia, the policy is even less intrusive than the drug police. Student drug testing results are
kept confidential and away from the police and the students are monitored from outside of the
bathroom stalls. Additionally, drug use may pose significant health dangers to school children
and, thus, any school district's interest in protecting students from a drug epidemic is a
compelling reason to subject the students to testing. Further, requiring the school to have
suspicion for each individual student would be impracticable and take up too many resources.
Therefore, the policy constituted a reasonable search because it reasonably served the District's
important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students.

10
 Ogletree v. Cleveland State University
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150513 (2022)
Facts: Aaron Ogletree, was a student at Cleveland State University ("CSU") studying chemistry.
He was enrolled in five classes for the Spring 2021 semester. For that semester, most CSU
classes were conducted remotely. Before attending classes in person, students were required to
complete and pass a daily health assessment. Ogletree was not able to pass the daily health
assessment, so CSU would not permit him to take his tests on campus in person. In January
2021, Ogletree disputed a policy in the syllabus for one of his general chemistry classes he was
enrolled in. The policy allowed the professor and test proctors for any exams "to ask any student,
before, during, or after an exam to show their surroundings, screen, and/or work area." After
Ogletree's dispute, the policy was removed from the syllabus.
That next month, Ogletree had a remote test scheduled for the chemistry class. CSU required
students to take remote tests in a location where they will be uninterrupted and Ogletree, who
lived with his mother and two siblings, testified that his bedroom was the only suitable test
environment available to him. About two hours before the test, Ogletree was informed by email
that the proctor would be checking his ID, surroundings and materials. Ogletree replied that he
had confidential documents, including tax documents, in his room and that there was not
sufficient time to secure them. At the start of the exam, the proctor asked Ogletree to perform a
room scan, and Ogletree complied. The scan took somewhere between 10 seconds and one
minute and was recorded. Ogletree sued CSU, alleging that the scan violated the Fourth
Amendment.
Issue: Whether a public university violates the Fourth Amendment by having a policy requiring
students to perform a room scan before taking a remote exam
Holding & Reasoning: Ogletree’s privacy interests outweigh university's interest in scanning his
room before conducting a remote test. The court concluded that the fact that most or nearly all
students did not object to the room scans does not mean that the routine use of such a practice
does not violate a privacy interest that society recognizes as factually and legally reasonable. It
held that Ogletree's subjective expectation of privacy at issue is an expectation that society views
as reasonable, and that lies at the core of the Fourth Amendment's protections against
governmental intrusion. The court further considered whether the searches were reasonable by
balancing their intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the legitimate
governmental interests. In this situation, the court concluded that it must examine the: (1) nature
of the privacy interest affected; (2) character of the intrusion; (3) nature and immediacy of the
government concern; and (4) efficacy of this means of addressing the concern. After considering
each of the four factors, the court concluded that Ogletree's privacy interest in his home
outweighed CSU's interests in scanning his room and found that the use of room scans is
unreasonable.

11
 Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I)
347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Facts: In Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia, Black minor public school students
sought help from their state courts to get into public schools. In every state and situation, Oliver
Brown's daughter of Topeka, Kansas and other African American minor children were denied
admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting
segregation according to students' race. In 1951, Oliver Brown filed a lawsuit, on behalf of his
daughter, against the Board of Education for Topeka, alleging that the segregation was unlawful
under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. In all of the cases, except for the
one in Delaware, the district court, using the "separate but equal" principle in Plessy v. Ferguson,
163 U.S. 507 (1896), ruled against the African American minor students. The United States
Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue: Whether the segregation of school children solely on the basis of race, even if the schools'
physical facilities and other tangible factors were equal, deprived African American children
equal opportunities in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Holding & Reasoning: Racial segregation of public school children denies Black children equal
protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, and separate educational facilities and
institutions are inherently unequal even when basic attributes of segregated Black and white
schools are the same. The "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, which allowed for
racial segregation as long as facilities were relatively equal, is overturned and has no place in
public education. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment helps explain the intended
application of the Amendment to public education, suggesting that it is supposed to forbid all
forms of discriminatory legislation against African American people.
To decide if racially segregated schools violate the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court examined
the actual effect of segregation on the entire public school system. Over time, public education
became one of the most valued and critical public services that state and local governments
provide. If children do not receive an adequate education, they cannot be expected to achieve
success. Because the opportunity for education exists and the government has undertaken the
duty to provide it, the opportunity has to be given to all students equally. In the present case,
even though the attributes of the white and African American schools are the same, the
opportunity for education is not equally provided to minority students because the existence of
segregation has a profound and detrimental effect on their hearts and minds. Studies, such as the
"doll tests" conducted by psychologists Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark, confirmed that children
experiencing segregation feel inferior, have less motivation, and perform at a lower educational
standard than the children that do not experience segregation. Therefore, segregation deprives
Black children of equal protection of the laws and violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution.

12
 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
551 U.S. 701 (2007)

Facts: The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District.
Since certain schools often became overenrolled when too many students chose them as their
first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide when a student would be admitted
to the popular schools. The tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. If
the racial demographics of any school's student body deviated by more than a predetermined
number of percentage points from those of Seattle's total student population (approximately 40%
white and 60% non-white), the racial tiebreaker went into effect. A non-profit group, Parents
Involved in Community Schools (Parents), sued the District, arguing that the racial tiebreaker
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issue: Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students
for admission to public high schools?
Holding & Reasoning: No. The Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and found the
District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. In order for a state actor to engage in discriminatory actions, it must do
so in a way that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. The only interests
recognized by this Court are: (1) to remedy past intentional discrimination; and (2) to achieve
exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.
The District's plan involved no individualized consideration of students, and it employed a very
limited notion of diversity ("white" and "non-white"). The Court stated that the District's goal of
preventing racial imbalance did not meet the Court's standards for a constitutionally legitimate
use of race: "Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional' to a compelling
state interest simply by relabeling it 'racial diversity'". The plans also lacked the narrow tailoring
that is necessary for race-conscious programs. The Court held that the District's tiebreaker plan
targeted demographic goals and not any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity.
The District also failed to show that its objectives could not have been met with
non-race-conscious means. These schools need to employ serious good-faith considerations of
workable race-neutral alternatives.

13
 Washington v. Davis
426 U.S. 229 (1976)

Facts: Davis (plaintiff) was an African American man who, along with another African
American man, applied for admission to the Washington, D.C., police department. Both men
were turned down and brought suit in federal district court against Washington (defendant), the
mayor of Washington, D.C., alleging that the police department used racially discriminatory
hiring practices by administering a verbal skills test (Test 21) disproportionately failed by
African Americans.

Issue: Did the recruiting procedures of the Washington, D.C. police department violate the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding & Reasoning: Government discrimination can be found only when a law or policy has
a discriminatory purpose and a disproportionate effect on a protected group. While a
disproportionate impact may offer evidence supporting the existence of a discriminatory purpose,
it is not sufficient to establish that a racial classification exists by itself. Strict scrutiny is not
appropriate unless a racial classification is shown, and the test is racially non-discriminatory on
its face because it is based on race-neutral attributes.

14
 Keyes v. School District No. 1
413 U.S. 189 (1973)
Facts: The public school system of Denver, Colorado built a new elementary school in the
community of Park Hill which utilized divided student attendance zones, optional zones (schools
that students could choose to attend or choose not to), and mobile classroom units. Although the
Denver schools never operated under a provision that mandated or permitted racial segregation
in public education, the schools remained segregated. Petitioners, parents of Denver public
schoolchildren, filed suit against respondent, School Board, claiming that School Board alone, by
using various techniques such as the manipulation of student attendance zones through
gerrymandering, allowing students and families to elect schools to attend, created or maintained
racially segregated schools throughout the school district.
The District Court found that by the construction of a new, relatively small elementary school in
the middle of a Black community west of Park Hill, through gerrymandering of student
attendance zones, using so-called "optional zones," and through the excessive use of mobile
classroom units as separate facilities, the respondent School Board had engaged in over a decade
of deliberate racial segregation with respect to the Park Hill schools. The Supreme Court agreed
to review the case.
Issue: Did the segregation in Denver involve all of the city's schools on a wide systematic level,
violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding & Reasoning: Yes. The Court held that plaintiffs in school segregation cases do not
need to individually prove segregation for each school and each student in a school system. As
long as it is proven that the school system has carried out a systematic program of segregation
that affects a substantial portion of the school system, it follows that there is in fact system-wide
segregation and the existence of a dual school system. Concentrating Black students in certain
schools through sneaky discriminatory policies have the effect of keeping other nearby schools
predominately white. The Court goes on to explain that racially motivated or inspired school
board actions have an impact beyond any one particular school that is the subject of a lawsuit.
This case is significant because it represents one of the first instances in which the Court
identified segregation in northern schools. In addition, it showed that educational segregation can
be found even in the absence of operating under an explicitly discriminatory and segregated
policy and is still an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

15
 Exhibits
I. Richmond Demographic Report 2020-2023
II. Copy of Email from Richmond School Board Superintendent
III. Globe Relevant Policies and Protocols
A. Globe Terms and Conditions of Use
B. Globe Academic Integrity Protocol Policy
C. Diagram of Room Recording Protocol
IV. Richmond High School Online Testing Policy
V. Instructions for Street Art Final Project
VI. Picture of Graffiti Art
VII. Screenshot of Ted Higgins' Hand
VIII. Screenshot of Ted Higgins' Room

16
Exhibit I: Richmond Demographic Report 2020-2023

17
 Exhibit II: Copy of Email from Richmond School District Superintendent

Date: July 27, 2019

To: Jamie Welton <james.welton@yahoo.com>

From: Rupert Tartt <r_tartt@hotmail.org>

Subject: Checking In...

Dear State Senator Welton,

I hope you are enjoying your time off from the session.

I am writing to check in regarding the redistricting plan we discussed in the spring. I have
discussed with the members of the School Board and Richmond High Principal, and we decided
it would be for the greater good. We know there would be certain "negative" impacts of such a
decision. I think you understand what I am saying... But the unfortunate truth of it is that public
schools are strapped for cash—sadly, we are no exception.

I emailed from my personal account just in case. Please call me to discuss details if you want my
input. I would prefer to not put more in writing (and you could also delete this).

Best,
Rupert

Rupert Tartt
Superintendent | Richmond School District
(372) 459-2222 | tartt_r@richmond.isd.org
Click Here to Schedule a Meeting With Me!

18
 Exhibit III: Globe Relevant Policies and Protocols
Exhibit A: Globe Terms and Conditions of Use
The following Terms and Conditions ("Terms") govern the usage of the Globe platform
and any services provided by Globe, Inc. By using Globe testing software, you are
agreeing to the following Terms:
1.1. Room Scan. Upon consent of the testing party, Globe software is authorized to
conduct a room scan using highly advanced technology.
1.2. Devices. Globe will conduct the above-mentioned room scan using two devices: one
camera through the computer on which the student takes the exam, and another from an
independent electronic device, such as a cellphone, tablet, or computer, that is placed
behind the student during the exam. While the testing computer will automatically scan
the room during the exam, the student will need to set up the second device behind them.
1.3. Proctors. Globe takes no responsibility for the assignment of proctors during
take-home exams and leaves that to the administration utilizing the software. Globe is not
responsible for proctors committing crimes while undergoing test administration, such as
violating the Constitutional protections of students or any other relevant laws.

Exhibit B: Globe Academic Integrity Protocol Policy

Globe does not condone cheating of any kind and promotes at-home assessments that are
conducted in an honest and ethical manner that respects the intellectual work of others.
A. Cheating: Using or attempting to use unauthorized assistance, material, or study
aids in examinations or other academic work or preventing, or attempting to
prevent, another from using authorized assistance, material, or study aids during
the course of the take-home exam unless otherwise permitted by the school.
Globe strives for and enforces academic integrity through the use of our thorough room
scan using two separate devices as well as proctor supervision.

Exhibit C: Diagram of Room Recording Protocol

19
Exhibit IV: Richmond High School Online Testing Policy

20
 Richmond High School Mission Statement

The mission of Richmond High School is to provide each student with the tools and
resources needed to succeed. Our school works to create an environment that
promotes life-long learning and develops the intellectual, cultural, and moral
foundations necessary for students to reach their potential. Richmond High School
strives to create a learning environment that is free from disruptions in the form of
violence, academic dishonesty, discrimination, bullying, and others. School officials are
permitted to suspend students from privileges if they are caught in violation of the
school's mission.

Academic Integrity Statement

Richmond High School believes in reinforcing the values of academic honesty and
integrity and encouraging students to make ethical decisions about their education. As
we strive to develop life-long learners, it is also our responsibility to help build
life-long positive reputations. Academic integrity is a core value that will serve the
student well, both in high school and beyond.

Online Testing Policy*

Richmond High is pleased to announce we will be conducting the vast majority of our
activities back in person for the 2021-2022 academic year. However, we also
wholeheartedly acknowledge the lasting impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
our community, faculty, and students. To make the transition back to in-person as
seamless as possible, Richmond High will allow teachers to continue to use Globe, the
at-home testing software, at their discretion on an as-needed basis. Students who do
not have access to electronic devices needed to run the Globe program may loan one
form the school at no cost. Additionally, students must complete take-home exams
through ExamProctorOnline to ensure unanimity and prevent academic dishonesty.

*(Updated August 2022)

21
 Exhibit V: Instructions for Street Art Final Project
ART 101 FINAL PROJECT: Street Art

Instructions: For your final project, you are to create a mini-form street art piece (but
not on the street!) that captures the spirit and techniques used in graffiti arts. You must
be able to bring this piece of art into the classroom to present to the classroom.

As we learned in Lesson One, three of the most important elements of art are "line,”
"shape," and "form." In street art, these translate to "tag,” "throwie," and "piece." In
your piece, you must be able to incorporate at least two of these three elements of street
art into your piece. This portion of the project will count towards the "Use of Elements
and Principles" portion of your grade.

Aside from these requirements and the rubric below, you are free to get creative. Don't
forget that a big part of street art is the emotional expression behind the art which can
often be political or have a moral message to share with the world. As always, please let
me know if you need any assistance or need to borrow any materials. And, most
importantly, have fun!

22
Exhibit VI: Picture of Graffiti Art

23
Exhibit VII: Screenshot of Ted Higgins' Hand

24
Exhibit VIII: Screenshot of Ted Higgins' Room

25