Frank Schubert: First Ever Lawsuit Against Critical Race Theory Indoctrination Filed In Nevada

An apparent first-in-the-nation lawsuit was filed yesterday in Clark County, Nevada as a result of the intentional constitutional violations inflicted on students who are subjected to instruction in “critical race theory” in public school.

The lawsuit supported by, a project of the International Organization for the Family (IOF) and publisher of, was filed on behalf of a student and his single mother. The lawsuit details the absurdity of the instruction that students are forced to endure, and the real consequences they suffer to their future if they refuse to participate in this indoctrination.

William Clark is a high school senior who aspires to a career in musicology. He’s worked hard to overcome difficult circumstances. His father passed away when he was young, and his mother is unemployed and disabled. William works 35 hours per week at night at a local Taco Bell to help support his family. The family lives in transitional housing.

Despite her own troubles, William’s mother has worked hard to ensure her children receive a top-quality education, securing coveted positions for them as students at top public charter schools in Las Vegas. William has been attending the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy, now known as Democracy Prep AC, since sixth grade. He has excelled throughout his academic career – until he was confronted, unexpectedly and without warning, at the beginning of his senior year by a purported “civic class” called “Sociology of Change.” The underlying theoretical basis for the class is known as “intersectionality” and is inspired by a political activist and “critical race theory” proponent. The class teacher describes her students as “social justice warriors.”

In this class, students are told that possessing certain characteristics inherently designates them as either being “privileged” or “oppressed.” The class has a strict understanding of what constitutes “privilege” and “oppression.” Those who identify as white, male, heterosexual, or Christian are intrinsically privileged and oppressive, which is defined as “malicious or unjust” and “wrong.”

It’s impossible for someone to disagree with their characterization as being privileged or oppressive because of their race, gender, sexuality or religious beliefs. Students were instructed that any denial of these characterizations amounts to unjust privilege “expressed as denial.” Class materials further instruct students that it is impossible for a person of color to be racist.

Once students understand and profess acceptance of the underlying premises of inherent “privilege” and “oppression,” they are required to “unlearn” and “fight back” against the “oppressive structures” implicit in their family arrangements, religious beliefs and practices, and racial, sexual and gender identities, all of which they are required to divulge and be subjected to interrogation.

William immediately understood that assigning moral attributes to a person based on inherent characteristics was wrong. He had a unique perspective from which to know this. As a Christian, he was raised according to the prescript of Dr. Martin Luther King, that people should be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.  By all outward appearances, William is white. He has green eyes and white skin. But William’s mother is black; his late father was white. William was the only student in the class who appeared to be white.

William was entirely uncomfortable divulging information to his “civics” teacher about his gender, sexuality, race or religious beliefs, since he knew that doing so would immediately result in him being characterized as privileged and oppressive. His black mother was furious to learn of the instruction he was being subjected to, particularly the idea that William would have to “unlearn” and “fight back” about the Judeo-Christian principles she had instilled in her son. William’s mom repeatedly approached the school administration seeking some sort of accommodation or alternative, and suggested several options such as taking a different civics class at another high school or even a community college.

No accommodation was forthcoming; no alternative was acceptable. In fact, the school declared that participation in this class was mandatory and required for graduation. No exceptions, period. If William did not comply, he would not graduate and his college dreams would be over.

When the possibility of litigation became apparent, school officials presented William and his mother with a sort of triple Hobson’s choice: he could apply himself diligently to the coursework and obtain a good grade and thus maintain his excellent college prospects; or he could do the minimal amount of work and obtain a C- grade, the lowest grade this school allows, dashing his hopes to attend a top college but at least he’d graduate; or he could continue his resistance and not graduate from high school.

When William and his mother continued to object, the school forced their hand, giving him a D- failing grade (below the so-called minimum grade allowed by their operating documents), and then a week ago suspended him indefinitely from school.

Yesterday William and his mother filed a lawsuit in federal court against the school, its officials, the teachers and administrators, the public charter school network and numerous others for violating their civil rights with this mandatory indoctrination of an entirely offensive, odious and outrageous curriculum. They seek a temporary and permanent injunction against this instruction, as well as monetary damages and attorney fees. They demand a jury trial so that the public can learn about what is going on in this, and many other, public schools.

As far as can determine, this is a first-in-the-nation lawsuit of this type. It has already attracted a huge degree of attention. The journalist Megyn Kelly @megynkelly tweeted this morning, “This is the answer to this nonsense. The law. It doesn’t allow racial discrimination – against blacks, whites or anyone based on skin color. If your company, or school, or anyone else tells you otherwise, get a lawyer. This has to stop.” was formed by the International Organization for the Family (IOF), the publisher of, to support civil rights litigation in defense of students’ freedom of conscience in public education and the rights of parents to guide and direct the upbringing of their children. Readers of are encouraged to make a financial donation to support the litigation.

This is a Breaking News story. Updates will be filed as warranted.

Frank Schubert

Leave a Reply