A Wisconsin law firm has threatened the Green Bay Public School District with legal action unless it adopts “a color-blind approach to resource allocation.” According to the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a school in the district reflexively de-prioritized the needs of a fourth-grade dyslexic student because he is white.
The WILL penned a letter to interim Superintendent Vicki Bayer on Monday stating that it will take appropriate legal action unless the district abandons “its discriminatory policy and return[s] its focus to serving all students based on need — not race,” demanding a response by Dec. 16.
The letter indicated that a mother in the district, Colbey Decker, has desperately sought accommodation for her son, only for King Elementary School to first overlook his needs, then delay essential literacy interventions. Decker’s son might have received priority for additional reading resources if he were American Indian, black, or Hispanic.
After enrolling her son in King Elementary School in January 2024, Decker put in numerous formal requests for one-on-one reading interventions. The school finally put Decker’s son on a wait list for a “Tier 2” reading intervention in April.
“This impacted him in the classroom, where his teachers, despite their willingness to help, lacked the expertise or time to provide effective interventions,” wrote WILL education counsel Cory Brewer and deputy counsel Dan Lennington.
The fourth-grader was finally enrolled in an intervention program in the fall of 2024; however, it was reportedly a “Tier 3” program, which is apparently less intensive than his needs would otherwise warrant. The sessions were also conducted in groups.
“This continued lack of adequate support has had a significant impact on her son,” said the letter.
‘The administrators are looking at children and classifying them by race.’
Decker subsequently “stumbled across” the “2024-25 School Success Plan,” which notes under a section on high-priority strategies and action steps that the school “prioritiz[es] additional resources to First Nations, Black, and Hispanic students.”
Decker told Blaze News that she was looking for a school calendar when she came across the document.
“I wasn’t familiar with it, so I clicked on it. As soon as I read it, all the warning bells went off,” said Decker.
According to Brewer and Lennington, the policy, as stated in the document, violates the Constitution and civil rights law: “Under both Title VI and the United States Constitution, the District has ‘no … authority … to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.'”
In their letter, the attorneys referred to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2023, decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard/UNC, in which the court echoed the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, indicating that no state has any authority under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to “use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.”
Brewer and Lennington noted that the ruling in Students for Fair Admissions was clear: “Race may never be used as a negative or as a stereotype. The district’s policy does just that: because he is white, Mrs. Decker’s son’s race is a negative for him.”
The frustrated mother reached out to King Elementary Principal Matt Malcore, asking whether her son receives “less services or less priority because he is white.”
Decker indicated that her son is in the 17th percentile, “so he is not in a priority group, but children in the priority group are performing at a higher level and they’re moving ahead of [her son.]”
A screenshot of the correspondence indicates that Malcore took the conversation offline, telling Decker he would “be happy to explain the work we do in relation to priority groups” in person or over the phone.
When asked whether Malcore subsequently acknowledged that the race-based prioritization of resources was discriminatory, Decker told Blaze News, “He stated to me that the district felt called to help these ‘underserved student populations.’ That’s why these priority groups were created. So I asked him, ‘What if we replaced the word with white. Would that make people uncomfortable?’ And he said that would never happen statistically.”
“As far as I know, the principal never denied that our client’s son was less of a priority because he was white,” Brewer told Blaze News. “He did confirm the policy is in effect at that school and that the school has priority groups based on race who receive additional resources like reading support.”
Blaze News reached out to Malcore and to Bayer for comment but did not receive responses by deadline.
The district told the Green Bay Press Gazette,
The District received the letter from WILL yesterday and we are investigating the allegations. However, we can state unequivocally that the District does not have a policy that includes the language included in the letter. All District policies must be approved by the Board of Education, and no such policy language exists.
Brewer told Blaze News that the “district seems to be taking the position that since this policy was not voted on by the school board, it is not a policy — but that does not matter. We view it as an excuse. … They’re not disputing that this school-level policy is in effect, it prioritizes based on race, and it is being applied to our client’s son.”
District policy documents indicate that priority performance goals “are established based on data that shows the District is meeting the needs of some student groups better than others. Focusing on a priority performance group of students will elevate the skills of educators and ultimately benefit all students.”
Despite the apparent race-based priority scheme, the district states on its primary webpage that it doesn’t discriminate against a person’s race, citing Wisconsin’s law against pupil discrimination. The district also has an active policy against discrimination against students in its curricular, career, and technical education; student services; and recreational or other programs or activities.
Decker told Blaze News that DEI in practice sets priorities on some people purely on the basis of immutable characteristics. Where resources are in limited supply, this becomes something of a zero-sum game: “If someone is made more of a priority, some else has to be less of a priority. And in this instance, my son has become less of a priority.”
“My son doesn’t know he’s a victim,” said Decker. “And I’m going to have to have a conversation with all three of our sons here very shortly and explain to them that his rights are being violated for no other reason than the color of his skin. That’s going to be a really difficult conversation.”
“They look at their classmates and they are color-blind, whereas the administrators are looking at children and classifying them by race,” continued Decker. “I don’t know how long I can shelter our children. I know that being a public voice speaking out against equity and advocating for equality — people are going to know and his friends are going to talk. He’s in fourth grade. Children are very aware of what’s going on in the world, so I’m going to have to have that conversation. But it’s going to be a really beautiful ending, because they know that I’m fighting for them and standing in the gap.”
The WILL has specifically demanded that the district ditch its race-based resource prioritization, adopt a “color-blind approach to resource allocation,” and provide immediate and adequate reading support to Decker’s son.
When asked whether the firm will pursue legal action if the district takes only partial action, Brewer said, “Unless the district takes a color-blind approach to helping students who need help regardless of their race, we and our client will consider all legal options for challenging the discriminatory policy, whether that’s a lawsuit or a federal complaint.”
‘It’s time to push back and imagine alternatives.’
“It is clear under federal law, in the United States Constitution, that school districts cannot categorize and discriminate against students based on their race,” continued Brewer. Moreover, the “prioritization of resources based on race is unlawful and immoral. And here we have a student who has a dyslexia diagnosis, is in need of resources, but who has been wait-listed for almost a year for any resources and he cannot get that time back.”
Brewer signaled hope that the incoming Trump administration might seize on “the opportunity for Title VI to be enforced in a way that ensures all individuals are treated fairly and not based on race.” Whereas the Biden administration has a tendency to treat people as members of identity groups, Brewer indicated they should instead be treated as unique individuals.
According to the attorney, such reform will likely be initiated via the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education.
Decker provided advice for any parents whose children are dealing with something comparable across the country: “You need to get everything documented. The school would love to just have in-person meetings, and that’s very convenient for them because there’s no paper trail. I have four years of notes and monitoring data and all the amazing things that have gotten us to this point to say, ‘Yes, this is wrong,’ and we have all the documentation to prove that, hopefully.”
“But the biggest thing as a parent is don’t stop. Don’t stop,” continued Decker. “Go on your school’s website. Read what they’re saying. They’re usually pretty forward about telling you what their priorities are. But it’s time to push back and imagine alternatives.”
Although Decker was unwilling to speculate about what the school and district might do in response to the letter, she suggested their equity push in recent years is a sign that they are “true believers.”
“It’s time for us as parents to push back and just ask that our children are seen equally,” said Brewer.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!