The Justice Building in Raleigh, N.C., home of the state Supreme Court
RALEIGH, N.C. - Parents whose children were expelled from a private school in North Carolina after a dispute over diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies can sue the school for defamation and fraud, based on allegations school officials wrongly accused them of being racists.
In a decision that goes against the grain of treating accusations of racism as protected expressions of opinion, the North Carolina Supreme Court on Aug. 16 said Doug and Nicole Turpin may be able to prove they were injured when Charlotte Latin Schools employees mischaracterized their criticism of DEI and removed their children from the school. Dissenting justices, joined by a private school association and the Catholic Church, worried the majority opinion “would open the door to litigation against all private schools.”
The Turpins sued Charlotte Latin Schools after they organized a group called “Refocusing Latin” to protest what they believed was a shift toward teaching politically polarizing topics after the killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. They accused teachers of focusing on the “marginalization of Black Americans” and “racial equity,” and telling sixth-graders “Republicans are white supremacists.”
The breaking point came after the school met with 10 parents from Refocusing Latin, who gave a PowerPoint presentation with specific complaints about how the curriculum had changed. After the meeting, the Turpins say, they emailed the school with worries about blowback to their kids because of their activities. “There will be no blowback, I assure you,” a school administrator responded.
After another meeting with Charles Baldecchi, the head of school, and Todd Ballaban, head of the middle school, the parents say Baldecchi said the PowerPoint included the racist statement that students and faculty of color at Charlotte Latin are “not up to the merit of the school.” The PowerPoint didn’t contain that statement, but Baldecchi expelled the Turpin students that day.
They sued the school, accusing it of fraud, breach of contract and defamation. Trial and appellate courts dismissed their claims, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed in an Aug. 16 opinion by Justice Richard Dietz.
On the defamation claim, the majority said a jury might conclude that school officials had injured the parents by suggesting their criticism of the shift in curriculum and non-merit-based hiring was racist. The appellate court ruled it was an unactionable opinion to conclude criticism of DEI was racist, but the majority said behind that opinion was a false statement about the actual wording of the PowerPoint.
“The school did not make a subjective statement of opinion such as `the Turpins are racists,’” the majority said. “The school told its entire community of students, parents, and faculty that the Turpins said a specific racist thing. That claim has an objective answer: the Turpins either said it or they didn’t.”
The plaintiffs still have to present “far more evidence” to prove defamation, the court said, and there was no evidence to support an emotional damages claim
Justice Allison Riggs dissented, joined by Justice Anita Earls, saying the majority opinion “will fling open the courthouse doors to disputes that should be settled in open, public conversations, not by judges.”
The fraud claim should be dismissed because the school’s enrollment agreement specifically says students can be dismissed if “the actions of a parent/guardian” interfere with the school’s mission, she wrote.
Private schools “are allowed to not tolerate differing views or independent thought,” as long as they don’t violate state or federal antidiscrimination laws.
“If parents are unhappy, they may exercise the right to contract with a different school that better aligns with their preferences,” she wrote.
As for defamation, “allegations of racism, like many subjective viewpoints, are in the eye of the beholder and do not squarely fit into the falsity test,” she said. “As a matter of law, allegations of racism should be treated as unprovable opinion, not fact, as they are in other jurisdictions.”
