California Students Get $1 Million After They Were Expelled for Wearing Supposedly Racist Acne Masks
School officials falsely accused the boys of posing for a photo in blackface.

During a sleepover in August 2017, three 14-year-old boys, two of whom were about to start attending St. Francis High School in Mountain View, California, took a picture of themselves wearing dark green acne masks. One of the boys, who was hosting the other two, had severe acne, and his friends applied the masks in an act of playful solidarity. They took the picture because they thought they looked "silly."
Three years later, after another teenager obtained the picture and posted it online, the two St. Francis students were falsely accused of posing in blackface and forced to leave the school under the threat of expulsion. This week a California jury awarded the boys, identified as A.H. and H.H. in their lawsuit against the school, $1 million in damages, plus a tuition reimbursement of about $70,000.
"A photograph of this innocent event was plucked from obscurity and grossly mischaracterized during the height of nationwide social unrest," the boys' familes said when they filed their lawsuit in 2021. The photo came to light in June 2020, a month after Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd. "St. Francis became involved in a number of racial scandals," NBC News reports, "including one where recent graduates of the school posted a meme about Floyd's death on Instagram." Because of that context, A.H. and H.H. argued, St. Francis officials rushed to judgment, tarring the students as racist and disrupting their lives without giving them a chance to explain the photo.
"The boys did not use the facemasks or take the photograph with any ill-intent, bias or prejudice, let alone in connection with any racist sentiments or epithets," the lawsuit said. "Defendants took it upon themselves to use the innocent and wholly unrelated photograph of the boys to make the malicious and utterly false accusation that the boys had been engaging in 'blackface,' and to recklessly assert that the photograph was 'another example' of racism" at St. Francis. That false accusation, according to the complaint, interrupted the boys' educations, destroyed their local reputations, and forced their families to move.
The jury agreed that St. Francis had treated the boys unfairly, thereby violating an oral contract. More controversially, the jury accepted a claim under the California Supreme Court's "common law doctrine of fair procedure," which extends due process requirements to private actors such as unions, hospitals, insurers, and professional organizations. Last year, the court ruled that the doctrine also applies to private universities. But according to the attorneys who represented A.H. and H.H., this is the first time the doctrine has been applied to a private secondary school.
"This case is significant not only for our clients but for its groundbreaking effect on all private high schools in California, which are now legally required to provide fair procedure to students before punishing or expelling them," said Dhillon Law Group partner Krista Baughman. "The jury rightly confirmed that St. Francis High School's procedures were unfair to our clients and that the school is not above the law."
Karin Sweigart, another lawyer at the firm, emphasized that it took four years to definitively refute the school's erroneous claim about the supposedly racist nature of the photo. "The jury's verdict finally cleared our clients' names after four long years of repeated personal attacks from St. Francis High School," she said. "Schools are supposed to protect and nurture children, not sacrifice them when it is convenient for public relations purposes."
The school's representatives said they "respectfully disagree with the jury's conclusion" about "the fairness of our disciplinary review process." They added that the school is "exploring legal options," including a possible appeal.
The plaintiffs' attorneys note that "St. Francis expelled the boys within 24 hours, without considering their evidence or offering any hearing." They add that "the school's actions led to significant personal, educational, and emotional consequences for the students."
The boys' parents amplified that point. "We would never wish the pain, humiliation, and suffering St. Francis has inflicted on our families on anyone," they said, "but we are thankful that the jury has spoken," "vindicated our boys," and "forced St. Francis to finally take responsibility for their repeated personal attacks."
Even with "time to reflect and contemplate after the heat of the moment had subsided," the parents said, St. Francis officials "don't regret their actions" and "would do the same thing today." Although the case has consumed "twenty percent of our boys' lives," they said, "the sacrifice is worth it to clear our boys' names" and "to try and make sure that St. Francis can never again assume a child is guilty" without giving him "the opportunity to show [his] innocence."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So, sanity is not completely dead in California.
Check back after the appeal - - - - - - -
"Although the case has consumed "twenty percent of our boys' lives," they said, "the sacrifice is worth it to clear our boys' names" "
And I am sure the 1 million goes down real smooth. Use that money to get the fuck out of California.
Unless it's plus legal fees, the boys won't be seeing much, if any, of that 1 million
You can get out of California, but you can never get the fuck out of California. The fuck is deeply embedded.
Glad to see these St. Francis boys won't be stigmatized.
I see what you did there.
Skin color is the most important thing
They can move to Canada and use the money to run for President against Trudeau.
I guess I skimmed to fast -
Was there a part about the school officials getting fired?
As if
Yeah, they got canned and had to pay this out of their own pockets. Haha.
School officials falsely accused the boys of posing for a photo in blackface.
*** looks at photo ***
Something, something, lying eyes.
*** reads alt-text ***
Al Jolson wearing acne mask
More precisely: "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause racism."
Are you talking about the school district?
St. Francis officials "don't regret their actions" and "would do the same thing today."
Then they're too fucking stupid to be trusted with the supervision of children. The parents of any student at this school should be looking elsewhere.
-jcr
Were they being racist against Pepe?
The school needs to forget an appeal, pay up and get out of this self-inflicted disaster before it gets even more expensive. This is inexcusable, but it's typical of the educators of today.
Nobody gets acne on their eyelids.
14 year old boys don't know how to use a face mask.
I wish that were true.
Yeah, it’s supposed to be left off the eyes, as seen here
That’s “Dead Sea Mud Mask”. Acne is one of the things (thought not the only one) it is said to treat. People have reportedly been using the stuff for 2,000 years, since long before “blackface” was a thing.
The picture I tried to show was not actually a link but an embedded binary [or base-64]-encoded image, and messed up the editing function for that post. Here’s another.
These kids are likely “training in the hills” for a white supremacy takeover of the government, should trump lose in November. Mad Maxie watters warned us about this.
This is very serious.
Acne Mask would be a good band name.
Look at it from the school officials' points of view. They got to play DEI cop, harass some white male students, and then give away someone else's money (and that someone else was probably "rich"). Win-win-win.
Get woke.....
The extent the elites are terrified of the woke mob is amazing..total cowards...
Honestly, any accusation of racism - even when it's valid - should be met with these kinds of awards at this point.
Let’s pretend these kids were posing in black face.
The incident occurred off campus. Two of the men were not even students when the photo was taken. They did not mock any black students or send this to any black students or attack black students.
What right did the school ever have to punish these kids for off campus speech-related behavior? We’re not defending speech enough if the story is “THESE kids shouldn’t be punished because they didn’t say anything racist.”
Saying racist things is free speech, and unless it’s doing something within the school that is disrupting the functioning of the school, it is not the school’s business.
You forget - it's virtue signaling.
It wasn't about what "rights" the school had - it was just an opportunity to signal how anti-racist they were. Remember, it's Marxism. You don't need to think. Just react against perceived "oppressors," knowing you're always in the right for doing so.
Same reason we all still believe that Nigerian MAGA's lynched Jussie Smollet.
It's a private school. They have a right to choose who is or is not worthy to attend, provided they do not breach a contract with the students, which is apparently what the jury ruled in this case.
He's asking about the moral basis, not the legal basis. Especially when this is a Christian school, which apparently has forgotten about the Christian principal of forgiveness.
arrgh - "principle", not "principal". Although it looks like the school principal also forgot about the principle here.
Ayn Rand wrote an essay about Principals and Principles as her benefactor Trickie Dick met his comeuppance.
While I suspect that most of us are delighted with the outcome in this particular case, I worry about how badly the "fair procedure" requirement can be used to prevent schools from imposing necessary discipline.
One of the great advantages of private schools over public is their ability to get rid of disruptive students quickly and efficiently. In a public school, expelling the kid whose antics are impeding the learning of the rest of his classmates requires a long and tedious process, during which the disruption continues unchecked. By contrast, a private school should be able to give him the boot in fairly short order, thus minimizing the problems he can cause for his fellow students.
My fear is that a fair-procedure requirement will deprive private schools of the ability to impose swift and sure discipline. How much procedure will the courts decide that we need in order to be fair? Will it suffice to sit down with the kids and their parents and get their side of the story, or will it require months of hearings and affadavits and consultations and God knows what else?
If expulsion becomes too difficult under such a requirement, I can see two possible outcomes, both of them bad. The first is that private schools lose much of their advantage over public: Immaculate Conception HS can no longer guarantee that its pupils won't be subjected to the sorts of disruptive fellows that they'd encounter at Michael Brown High. The second is that private schools have to become extremely selective about their students, so they can't afford to take chances with kids from bad neighborhoods who might turn out to be disruptive; and that means that those kids are going to have to go to Gentle Giant High whether they like it or not.
Personally, I’m not a huge fan of school discipline for off-school activity in the first place. Schools are neither parents nor governments. They are institutions of education.
School discipline for on-school activity is connected to the ability of the institution to function, to deliver education. School discipline for off-school activity begins to look like trying to form the moral character of the students (the parental function) or to maintain societal goals (the governmental function).
Principal, stay in your lane! You’re just the principal. You're not really that important. The students probably won’t remember you ten years from now, and that’s a good thing.
Focus on keeping the school running, and let parents and governments do their respective jobs without your unwanted, unneeded, and unhelpful assistance.
So... blackheads ain't blackface?
Nope. Why are you so upset about the verdict?