Also, another girl directly complains of inappropriate comment made last year

By John Klar

The Randolph Union High School volleyball team changing-room controversy has taken yet another turn – one that reveals the agenda of Superintendent Layne Millington to prejudice girls’ rights and target a student who dares challenge him. Mr. Millington has silenced and discredited these girls by manipulating the school’s disciplinary procedures, most recently in a new incident of alleged improper conduct involving Blake Allen, the 14-year-old freshman girl who complained about being ogled by a biological male teammate while changing.

To understand this story, let us return to an early report made by the girls regarding the trans-student:

Female student A and B both told The Daily Signal that the student had allegedly also said, “my male instincts are kicking in,” referring to another female student’s breasts (though neither female student A nor female student B heard the remarks made herself).

This alleged remark was not heard by “Female student A and B,” and so this was just hearsay. It also has been angrily denied by the transgender student’s mother. But on October 21, I met with a girl (Female student D) along with her mother. This girl claims to have directly received an inappropriate comment from this same trans-student, last school year, when both were in the eighth grade together at Randolph. According to Student D, she and another student were changing clothes when the transgender student said, “You’re making my male instincts kick in. I want to f— you.” 

Female student D stated that the other girl reported the matter to the principals, who dismissed it and said “they have a right to change in there.” This outraged Student D, who then also complained – and whose allegation was similarly dismissed.

Given the current controversy, the mother of Student D recently advised Layne Millington of the incident last year. Mr. Millington purportedly looked into the matter, and then replied:

I spent a good bit of time investigating the RUHS administration’s response to this allegation. They fully investigated it when the information was brought forward. The conclusions they reached were reasonable given the statements and evidence at the time. During my investigation, it was noted that you had not connected with the RUHS team to discuss your concerns. As is required under the Board’s conflict resolution policy, I highly recommend that you reach out directly to [RUHS principals] Caty Sutton and/or Lisa Floyd and talk with them directly. I am sure they will be able to set your mind at ease.

Student D’s mother did not feel this response was satisfactory, but she and her daughter decided to drop the matter as they felt the school had dismissed Student D as dishonest, and that she might suffer bullying for speaking out. They also explained to me that Blake Allen (the student who reported a similar experience this season) had started a conflict with her (student D), but emphasized that Blake and the other girls were telling the truth about the recent locker room incident.

The week after our meeting there arose a new conflict, in which Student D claimed to have been called names by Blake Allen, and filed a complaint with the RUHS principals. Layne Millington skipped the RUHS route he had just advised Student D’s mother to follow. Instead, his office undertook an investigation against Blake. However, the girls quickly resolved the situation between themselves, and Student D and her mother advised the school accordingly.

But this was not accepted by Layne Millington’s office. His assistant Superintendent, Heather Lawler, emailed Student D’s mother:

While it is positive news to hear of a resolution between the students, outside of the school’s investigation, RUHS remains obligated by the State’s mandated Procedures to fulfill the duties outlined in the HHB Policies and Procedures. To that end please provide me with the following information as RUHS considers the remaining duties under its HHB Policy and Procedures….

1. What representations have been made by the Respondent student both with respect to their past treatment of [Student D], as well as their intentions going forward? 
2. Do you, or [Student D], believe that [Student D] experienced emotional or educational impacts, and in particular difficulty accessing her education to date as a result of Respondent’s conduct?
3. Do you or [Student D] have remaining concerns regarding Respondent’s intentions going forward?

Please provide responses to items 1-3 above by Monday, October 31, 2022. [bold type in original].

Ms. Lawler continued to press both this mother and Student D directly for further information, on October 31 writing “Please respond to this request for information by the end of today.” But the mother objected, responding:

I’ve had it with your tactics of trying to force us to pursue this. This was resolved between the girls and I would think you would commend them for it. Isn’t that what we teach our kids? Problem solving. SO STOP. Let these kids move on and focus on what’s important. Their education. Not your agenda to get back at the Allens. And if you keep trying to force me or my daughter to do anything you will be answering to my attorney next. Do not use my daughter to attack the Allens! You did not bother to tell them we didn’t want to pursue it for that sole purpose. 

Do not contact or question my daughter again about any of it. Why should we bother to answer any of your questions? You never answer any of my questions.

This last remark referred to the failure of the school to credit Student D in the previous year’s allegations of inappropriate locker room behavior, and the failure of Heather Lawler and Layne Millington to explain why they were treating the cases so differently. The next day, this mother inquired yet again:

Could you tell me what the procedure is for this complaint? When I spoke with Layne about [Student D]’s complaint about inappropriate conduct by [the trans-student] in the locker room I was told the proper procedure was to go through the principals at the school. That does not seem to be the case now?

Ms. Lawler answered:

Yes, communicating with the building principals is the correct procedure. I believe they have received the information you are referring to here regarding the locker room allegations. I have cc’ed them to be sure. 

I am assigned to respond to the incident reported on 10/25. I was not involved with the previous incident involving the alleged occurrences in the locker room. If anything new happens, please communicate with the Co Principals Caty Sutton and Lisa Floyd as before. 

I have attached the procedures for your review.

To the mother’s surprise, the school proceeded to question her daughter yet further on November 1, withdrawing her from class and falsely assuring her that her mother had approved further questioning. This outraged Student D’s mother, who complained accordingly:

Who the h–l do you think you are? Taking my daughter away from her education after I told you not to? I could go all kinds of places with this conversation but I think you know exactly where this is going. A Lawyer. You trying to bully us to push a bully complaint. That’s real professional of you………

But the school did not back down, or deny these complaints. Instead, Heather Lawler countered:

I am sharing this information with you.

“Schools stand in place of the parents when it comes to students; they are minors, and therefore we act as their parents when they are here with the equivalent rights to control their behavior and to question them as their parents.  We do have the right to question students with or without a parent present as we also have a duty to  investigate matters that are brought to our attention, and those investigations typically require student interviews.”

The district will try to honor your requests when possible. In this situation, we needed to hear from [Student D] directly regarding what happened and if she feels safe. 

The mother was furious:

There was no need for you to act as her parent when I already told you what was going on and was fully involved. So don’t pull that with me. And furthermore you lied to her and said I knew you were talking to her when I clearly told you to leave her alone and you pulled her from her education. You have overstepped your bounds and clearly have no idea that I am educated enough to know that what you did was wrong. My emails alone will attest to the fact there is no need for you to act as her parent because I was fully involved the whole time.

The quoted language from Heather Lawler, which was used to justify questioning a minor despite her mother having specifically prohibited it, came from Layne Millington. Without Student D’s cooperation, the school dropped the bullying complaint against Blake Allen, but has not apologized for this conduct. 

As one of the volleyball team girls stated in an October 13 article: “I feel like everyone’s just trying to twist the story on us and make us look like the bad people in this situation.” Layne Millington’s use of an alternate procedure (through his office instead of RUHS) to investigate Blake Allen for allegedly bothering Student D is suspicious, as is his dismissal of Student D’s previous complaint against the trans-student while intensely pressuring Student D to testify against Blake in this case even after she sought to drop it. Student D is an interesting witness – despite her conflict with Blake, she swears Blake and the other girls are telling the truth in this year’s locker room dispute.

This merits more investigation…. 

The author is a Brookfield lawyer, farmer and candidate for State Senate.