After two local harassment settlements, school leaders and student advocates talk about what the heck is going on

By Tom Ayres, Senior Staff Writer

For the second time in two years, the Mountain Views Supervisory Union (MVSU) has settled civil actions related to alleged harassment, bullying, and discrimination at Woodstock Union Middle and High School (WUHS/MS) and Woodstock Elementary School (WES), while denying wrongdoing in either matter.

In one instance, the Vermont Human Rights Commission (HRC) ruled unanimously in January of last year that there were reasonable grounds to believe that WUHS/MS and the supervisory union had discriminated against a 13-year-old Black student “based on his race, color, and national origin, in violation of the Vermont Fair Housing and Accommodations Act,” by failing to adequately intervene on the student’s behalf after learning of multiple incidents of racist bullying and harassment during the 2021-22 school year.

In a settlement agreement ratified last May by the Black student’s mother — who has identified herself publicly as Jaya Holliman, a Woodstock native — together with MVSU School Superintendent Sherry Sousa and the four-member HRC, the school district agreed to pay Holliman and her son $175,000 in full resolution of the complaint initially filed with the human rights body in August 2022.

In the second case, the Standard reported last July on a claim of bullying and harassment of another student in Woodstock. MVSU officials acted to settle a civil lawsuit brought against the district over claims of four years of bullying endured by the student at WES and WUHS/MS. Superintendent Sousa signed off on a $97,500 settlement agreement in U.S. District Court last summer.

Regarding both matters, the MVSU administration denied any wrongdoing but agreed to the settlements with the students and families involved to avoid the time and expense of litigation. Officials at the VHRC reported that the $175,000 payment in the case of the discrimination complaint regarding the Black student was the largest individual settlement for a school-based discrimination claim in the commission’s history. The total cost of settling both the HRC complaint of racial discrimination and the lawsuit over gender-identity-related harassment — covered by the school district’s liability insurance — was $272,500.

The allegations by the Black student in the WUMS/HS case included repeated incidents of his being called the N-word by his aggressors; the waving of a banana at him with comments that he looked like he needed it; drawing on his arm with a dark marker with remarks that it could not be seen on his skin; and a statement by another student, in a science class discussion of human evolution that equated the head of the Black student, then a seventh-grader at WUMS/HS, to that of a chimpanzee’s. In the investigative report compiled by the HRC, Holliman, the student’s parent, also details numerous meetings and communications with school officials — predominantly former WUMS/HS principal Garon Smail — where actions for dealing with the incidents of race-based harassment were discussed in detail but, the student’s parent contended, never fully implemented or enforced. The student in question is now attending a private high school elsewhere in the state.

In the other case, the 22-page lawsuit filed in March 2022 alleged that the WES student was repeatedly called a gay slur and that fellow students refused to allow him to join activities because of their prejudice against him. Court papers noted that offending students would grab the victim “without his consent to emphasize their taunts that his body was overly feminine.” He was also punched, assaulted, and at one point thrown to the ground and received a concussion, the lawsuit said. “At no time did any WCSU personnel act to deter, much less put a complete stop to the harassment. At no time did any WCSU personnel act to discipline the offending students,” the lawsuit alleged, referring to the present-day MVSD by its then-current, former name — the Windsor Central Supervisory Union or WCSU. The repeated incidents of bullying continued after the boy graduated from WES and moved on to the WUMS/HS. In the end, he left WUMS/HS and enrolled in a different school.

In the racial discrimination case brought against WUMS/HS, Sousa has stood behind her staff and administrators, contending that the staff worked diligently to respond to the student’s needs and concerns and responded appropriately to complaints of harassment reported to the school by the student and his parent.

Educators, advocates for BIPOC, LGBTQ+ students, other marginalized communities respond

In the wake of the investigation of the racial discrimination complaint and resultant settlement before the Vermont HRC — a year-old story that just broke publicly last week — the Standard reached out to administrators of the Mountain Views Supervisory Union (now the MVSU) and to representatives of racial justice and equity and LGBTQ+ organizations in the state with questions about discrimination, harassment and bullying in our schools. 

The following are the joint responses from MVSD Superintendent Sherry Sousa and current WUMS/HS Principal Aaron Cinquemani, as well as from NAACP Rutland Executive Director Mia Schultz; Dana Kaplan, the executive director of Outright Vermont, the statewide LGBTQ+ youth advocacy organization; and Curtiss Reed Jr., the executive director of the Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity, based in Brattleboro. Reed is also the principal of CRJ Consulting Group, which works to strengthen inclusive and equitable practices in Northern New England as a means of stimulating economic development. CRJ works with clients such as state and municipal governments, business and civic organizations, law enforcement agencies, and school supervisory unions and professional organizations.

 

MVSU Superintendent Shery Sousa and Principal Aaron Cinquemani discuss their procedures

 

Q. Please provide an overview of the processes by which MVSU/School District (MVSD) schools investigate student and family allegations of bullying and harassment, specifically as to what is done to support and protect the student who is alleging the harassment and what is done to confront and, if need be, discipline the alleged perpetrator(s) of the harassment?

A. Students or families who believe they have experienced harassment or bullying are encouraged to report the incident to their child’s principal or designated school official. MVSD has appointed specific employees to receive these complaints, as outlined in our policies. Upon receiving a complaint, the designated employee initiates a prompt and thorough investigation. This process involves interviewing the complainant, the alleged perpetrator, and any witnesses to gather relevant information. The district ensures that all reports and investigations are handled with strict confidentiality to protect the privacy of all individuals involved.

During the investigation, the district may implement interim measures to ensure the complainant’s safety and well-being. This can include adjusting class schedules, providing counseling services, or implementing no-contact directives between the parties involved.  MVSD strictly prohibits any form of retaliation against individuals who report harassment or bullying. The district takes reasonable steps to prevent retaliation and will address any retaliatory actions promptly.

If the investigation concludes that harassment or bullying behavior is present, the district will take appropriate disciplinary actions against the perpetrator(s). Consequences may vary depending on the severity of the behavior and can range from behavioral interventions and counseling to suspension or expulsion, in accordance with the district’s disciplinary policies.

For detailed information, including specific procedures and definitions, please refer to MVSU’s “C10 Prevention of Harassment, Hazing and Bullying of Students” policy and the accompanying procedures document, available on the district’s official website at tinyurl.com/33ckjm8k.

Q. How do MVSU/MVSD administrators, principals, teachers, and staff follow up with consistency to protect alleged victims of harassment and bullying and ensure that intervention efforts are carried out successfully; that the alleged harassment ceases; and that the situation is effectively remediated, if necessary, through disciplinary processes for the perpetrators?

A. After an incident is reported, administrators and designees closely monitor the situation to ensure the alleged harassment ceases. They maintain regular communication with the affected student to assess their well-being and provide ongoing support.  All reports, investigations, and follow-up actions are thoroughly documented. This ensures a consistent approach and allows for accountability in handling each case.

Based on the investigation’s findings, the school implements appropriate interventions to address the behavior of the perpetrator(s). This may include counseling, behavioral contracts, or other corrective measures. If warranted, disciplinary actions are taken in accordance with district policies and school procedures. Consequences are applied consistently to reinforce the district’s commitment to a safe learning environment.  After interventions or disciplinary actions are implemented, principals conduct follow-up assessments to ensure the effectiveness of these measures and to confirm that the harassment has ceased.

Q. How much do federal and state privacy regulations impact the extent to which educators can investigate and remediate alleged incidents of bullying and harassment of any sort?

A. Federal and state privacy regulations require educators to balance the need for thorough investigation and effective remediation of bullying and harassment incidents with the obligation to protect the confidentiality of student information. By following established policies and procedures, educators can navigate these regulations to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all students.

Federal and state privacy regulations, particularly the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), play a significant role in how educators investigate and address alleged incidents of bullying and harassment. FERPA is designed to protect the privacy of student education records and generally prohibits the nonconsensual disclosure of personally identifiable information from these records. This means that while educators can and should conduct thorough investigations into allegations of bullying and harassment, they must do so in a manner that safeguards the confidentiality of all students involved.

For instance, when a student or their parents report an incident, educators are obligated to investigate the matter promptly and effectively. However, during and after the investigation, FERPA restricts the sharing of specific details about disciplinary actions taken against other students. This means that while the victim and their family can be informed that appropriate actions have been taken to address the situation, they may not be provided with detailed information about the sanctions imposed on the perpetrator, as this could violate the perpetrator’s privacy rights under FERPA.

Q. How frequently are MVSU/MVSD administrators, staff, and teachers trained regarding their responsibilities with respect to alleged incidents of harassment and bullying of individual students? AND with respect to the additional training sessions agreed upon in the wake of the recent Human Rights Commission settlement: How are those sessions going and what have school administrators, staff, and teachers learned from the sessions about any possible shortcomings in the handling of past allegations at MVSU/MVSD schools?

A. MVSD provides regular training and opportunities for administrators, principals, teachers, and staff to recognize, respond to, and prevent harassment and bullying. This training promotes a consistent and informed response to incidents. 

The training provided by the Human Rights Commission in August for all faculty, staff and administrators was well received and appreciated.  Educators asked impactful questions that directly related to their daily work in supporting students and creating a welcoming environment.  The HRC then surveyed faculty and staff regarding other areas of training that they would like. The HRC has not scheduled any additional training at this time.

 Q. Looking back over the past five to ten years, have you seen a decline or increase in the incidence of harassment, bullying, and hazing at MVSU/MVSD schools? AND are there any investigations currently under way at any of the schools in the MVSU/MVSD and, if so, at which schools?

A. In nearly 16 years of being a public school educator, [Sherry Sousa said she has] experienced consistency in HRC reports. Regarding current investigations, specific details about ongoing cases in MVSD schools are not publicly disclosed to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This practice aligns with federal and state privacy regulations, such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which safeguard student information.

BIPOC, LGBTQ+ advocates discuss bullying, harassment, and discrimination in our schools

Q. How prevalent are incidents of harassment of, bullying of, and systemic discrimination against BIPOC and LGBTQ+ students in Vermont? In your estimation, have the incidents increased in recent years?

A. Mia Schultz, Executive Director, NAACP Rutland: Racial discrimination in Vermont schools is not an isolated issue — it is a systemic problem. The Woodstock settlement is just one example of what BIPOC students and families have been saying for years: schools, often in spite of robust training, like Woodstock Middle and High School, are failing to protect Black and Brown children from racial harassment.

Reports from the Vermont Human Rights Commission and the Agency of Education confirm a rise in racial harassment complaints across the state. While part of this increase comes from greater awareness and advocacy, it also reflects a broader national climate where pushback against racial equity has emboldened discrimination. Administrators’ failure to act in the WUMS/HS case is not an outlier — it is part of a troubling pattern where schools neglect their responsibility, allowing hostile environments to persist rather than confronting racism head-on.

This is bigger than one school or one student. Racial bullying and discrimination are persistent issues in Vermont, but Woodstock’s lack of accountability highlights a deeper failure of leadership. The burden cannot fall on children to endure racism — it is the duty of schools and districts to ensure their safety. Schools must be proactive in creating environments where every student is protected, rather than only reacting when legal action forces them to.

Dana Kaplan, Executive Director, Outright Vermont: Leading up to and following the election, we have heard from LGBTQ+ and allied students, parents, and caregivers, as well as school administrators and educators, that there is an increase in harassment and bullying incidents. These reports have confirmed what we already know, which is that anti-LGBTQ+ groups, organizations, and individuals are emboldened to act because they do not fear consequences. However, it still remains against the law and our state’s policy. We appreciate that (Vermont Education) Secretary (Zoie) Saunders reminded folks that these laws are still in effect and pointed people to the agency’s guidance document, “Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Student Best Practices” (tinyurl.com/59tdj2fw) and the laws for the Prevention of Hazing, Harassment, and Bullying (tinyurl.com/4z7rpmtn). However, more needs to be done to provide support to LGBTQ+ students and educators during these times.

Curtiss Reed Jr., Executive Director, Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity, and Principal, CRJ Consulting Group: Virtually every Global Majority (aka BIPOC) and LGBTQ+ student has been the target of unwanted harassment or bullying by another student(s) — however, not every targeted student reports being harassed or bullied due to unfavorable social climates (i.e. “you snitch, you stitch”), parent/guardian inability or unwillingness to challenge entrenched school administrative cultures, and/or school personnel who exhibit benign neglect or willful ignorance towards Global Majority and LGBTQ+ students.  

While the short turnaround on the timing of your request [due to deadlines for this article] did not allow for a full longitudinal statistical analysis of data from the Agency of Education or the Vermont Department of Health Youth Risk Behavior Survey, anecdotally we would state that harassment and bullying continue to be pervasive in the face of a rapidly growing BIPOC population. As our BIPOC population has grown over five-fold since 1990 and now constitutes 6.4% of our general population, so has the number of Global Majority school-age students which account for upwards of 15-20% in some school districts.

Q. Are school districts in the state actively and effectively implementing and enforcing state-mandated harassment and bullying policies in Vermont?

A. Schultz: While Vermont law mandates that schools have Hazing, Harassment, and Bullying policies, there are serious concerns about enforcement, particularly within the Woodstock School District. Too often, policies are written for compliance rather than real protection — without accountability or enforcement, a policy is just words on a page.

The Vermont Human Rights Commission has reported that many schools fail to properly handle racial harassment complaints, and Woodstock Middle and High School exemplify this failure.

Despite repeated reports from the student and family in this case, the district did not intervene in a meaningful way until legal action forced their hand. In fact, administrators repeatedly failed to respond to the multiple emails from the family imploring them to act. Disturbingly, there are also documented instances across Vermont where students who report harassment face retaliation or punishment instead of receiving the protection they are entitled to.

When a district like Woodstock fails to act — or worse, isolates the victim instead of the perpetrator — it signals that racism will be tolerated. That is unacceptable. Schools must move beyond passive policies and take active steps to ensure BIPOC students feel safe, supported, and valued. Without real enforcement and accountability, these policies mean nothing to the students they are supposed to protect.

Kaplan: The Human Rights Commission (hrc.vermont.gov) receives these reports… What we can say is that the goal of President Trump’s administration’s executive orders and the pace at which they are being issued is a deliberate attempt to create chaos and confuse people, so it is imperative that students, parents, caregivers and folks working in education hear as often as possible from Secretary Saunders and that there is timely and clear direction and guidance about enforcing Vermont’s laws. We’re going to continue doing our part to build a Vermont where every LGBTQ+ youth has hope, equity, and power. Like most Vermonters, we remain steadfast in this commitment and a part of that is to continue to support students, educators and districts on the ways that they can continue to create not only safe learning environments for LGBTQ+ youth, but environments where they can thrive within Vermont’s educational system.

Reed: Many school districts believe they are actively and effectively implementing and enforcing state-mandated harassment and bullying policies due to the inability of Global Majority families to sustain lengthy procedural appeals and legal challenges with unconsciously unskillful school officials who are charged to administer policies. School personnel have perfected the skill or tactics of dissuading Global Majority families to fully exercise to the full extent of the law their rights.

Q. What are the present-day challenges, failures, and shortcomings of local school districts and the Vermont Department of Education in ensuring open reporting and accountability measures for incidences involving harassment, bullying, and discrimination against BIPOC and LGBTQ+ students in Vermont?

A. Schultz: A key barrier to accountability is the legal standard that requires harassment to be both “severe and pervasive” before action is taken. This threshold allows harmful behavior to persist unchecked, forcing students to endure prolonged discrimination before schools are legally required to intervene. The Vermont Human Rights Commission has recommended removing this restrictive standard so schools take action early rather than waiting until the harm escalates.

Yet, the Vermont Department of Education has fought hard against removing this legal standard, raising serious concerns about where its priorities lie. Rather than focusing on making schools safer for students, the department appears more concerned with minimizing liability for school districts. By resisting this necessary reform, the state is actively choosing to uphold a system that makes it harder for BIPOC students to receive protection and justice.

Even when the Woodstock School District was forced to confront this case through legal action, it refused to acknowledge the harm done or admit any responsibility. Instead of using this as an opportunity for meaningful change, the district denied wrongdoing, expressed their disagreement with the unanimous vote of the HRC commissioners, and avoided accountability, reinforcing the systemic failures that allow racial harassment to persist.

While some school districts take proactive steps to address racial discrimination, others — like Woodstock — allow it to continue unchecked. The absence of independent oversight means students and families are often left without real recourse when schools fail to act. The Vermont Department of Education must take a stronger role in ensuring these incidents are not only reported and investigated fairly but also lead to real restoration — not just for the students harmed but also through meaningful education for those responsible. Schools must move away from reactive, punitive responses and toward transformative justice models that address harm at its root.

This issue is bigger than one school or one case. It reflects a broader failure in Vermont’s education system, where institutions too often focus on protecting themselves rather than protecting students. Until both Vermont schools and the Department of Education take systemic racism seriously — and stop prioritizing legal risk over student safety — more children will remain at risk, and real progress will remain out of reach.

Kaplan: Students face unclear procedures for reporting incidents and often don’t trust that adults have the training to handle them appropriately or take them seriously. Additionally, the intersection of identities — such as being non-binary, Black, or autistic — affects how incidents are experienced and responded to.

Educators, on the other hand, struggle with a lack of capacity, unclear guidance, and inconsistent training. Without standardized approaches across schools and districts or a central body providing oversight, there is no clear framework to ensure incidents are addressed effectively and equitably.

Reed:  

Challenges include:

• Administrative cultures, and/or school personnel who exhibit benign neglect or wilful ignorance towards Global Majority and LGBTQ+ students.
• Insufficient cultural humility to recognize when harm manifests itself.
• Unconsciously unskillful school board members that protect ineffective and incompetent school administrators from impacted students and their families.
• A lack of technical assistance and independent funding for students and their families to bring lawsuits against school personnel and districts. 

Q. How do you expect that the concerted federal pushback from the new Trump Administration against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives will impact incidents of bullying, harassment, and discrimination in schools?

A. Schultz: There is a direct connection between national rhetoric and what happens in our schools. When federal leadership undermines diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, it emboldens those who seek to roll back progress at the local level. Students pay attention. When national leaders dismiss the reality of racism, some take it as permission to act on their prejudices.

Likewise, when a school district refuses to take responsibility for its role in racial violence — as the Mountain View Supervisory Union, led by Sherry Sousa, has done — it sends a dangerous message: racial harassment can go unchallenged. Woodstock had an opportunity to lead, to acknowledge harm, and to commit to meaningful change. Instead, by avoiding accountability, they have made it even harder to address the systemic issues within their schools.

With the Trump administration openly opposing DEI initiatives, Vermont schools must be proactive in protecting their students. We cannot allow our children to become collateral damage in a political fight against racial justice. Schools must reaffirm their commitment to equity, no matter what happens at the federal level.

Kaplan: The Trump Administration’s pushback against DEI will have a direct and harmful impact on bullying, harassment, and discrimination in schools. When federal leadership or any leadership devalues DEI efforts, it sends a message that the safety and well-being of marginalized students are not a priority. This can embolden those who engage in discriminatory behavior while discouraging schools from implementing the policies and training necessary to address these issues effectively. 

Additionally, without strong federal support, schools may face increased uncertainty about their obligations, leading to inconsistent responses to incidents and a lack of accountability. Marginalized students — particularly those at the intersection of multiple identities — already experience heightened vulnerability, and this increases that. Meanwhile educators may feel even less equipped to intervene. Any rollback of protections deepens inequities and makes schools less safe for the very students who need the most support.

Reed: The Trump Administration has given school administrators and community members with bigoted ideologies the permission structure to declare open season on Global Majority and LGBTQ+ students. School administrators can now claim DEI initiatives, including state statutes, render null any efforts to address inequities.

Q. Are there any other comments you would like to offer about issues of bullying, harassment, and discrimination in schools in Vermont?

A. Schultz: Our schools should be places of learning, not harm. No child should fear walking into a classroom because of the color of their skin. Each child has a legally protected right to equal education regardless of race, country of origin, skin color, gender, religion, or sexuality.

Cases like the Woodstock settlement underscore the urgent need for reform. Schools must take meaningful action — holding perpetrators accountable with real consequences, providing transformative education for them and their families, and implementing ongoing anti-racism training for staff and students.

Every time a student faces racial harassment and the school fails to act, it reinforces a dangerous precedent: that BIPOC children are less worthy of protection. The Rutland Area NAACP will continue to push for the systemic changes necessary to ensure Vermont schools are safe for all students.

Kaplan: Our message is to LGBTQ+ and BIPOC youth across the state and it’s this: no law or policy can ever diminish how incredible you are. You belong here, and you are deeply loved. You have the absolute right — both legally and fundamentally — to a safe school environment where you can learn and grow. We stand alongside you and will never stop fighting for your right to live authentically and access the education you deserve.

Reed: Without structural reforms (i.e. establish well-funded technical assistance and legal representation) our educational system will continue to fail our students (i.e. perpetuating toxic learning environments).  

At the macro level, school climate becomes a workforce development issue. Our future workforce currently sits in our classrooms. What graduating, trauma-subjected Global Majority student would want to stay and work in Vermont knowing their tormentors simply migrated from schools to workplaces? An interesting study would be to track what percentage of Global Majority students decided to stay or returned to Vermont after college and to what extent their public school experience influenced that decision.