How far should we go to ensure that every student (no matter their race, political views, or beliefs) is protected from harassment in public schools? This question takes on urgency in light of a recent case involving a student’s disturbing claims of racial and political bullying. These allegations included physical violence, derogatory slurs, and degrading ridicule, not only from peers but also from educators who were supposed to safeguard his well-being. Yet, despite the gravity of these accusations, the courts ultimately dismissed his case. While this outcome might seem shocking, the situation is more legally and socially complex than it first appears. Even so, it raises critical and timely questions: What qualifies as racial harassment in a world where politics, race, and identity are often inseparably linked? And how should the law respond to such multifaceted forms of discrimination?

At its core, the case of B.W. v. Austin Independent School District involved allegations from B.W., a white student, that he was subjected to years of harassment, including derogatory comments, physical assaults, and racial insults, in the Austin Independent School District. B.W. claimed that both students and faculty targeted him based on his race, political beliefs, and religious identity, with administrators allegedly failing to act decisively to address the situation. Despite the detailed allegations, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case, raising significant questions about the legal standards governing racial harassment under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

B.W.’s allegations detailed a pattern of mistreatment. He recounted being called “Whitey” by a teaching aide, mocked for his race by teachers, and physically assaulted by a student who allegedly stated the attack was motivated by B.W.’s whiteness. B.W. also described pervasive verbal abuse, including accusations of racism, and cited instances of being depicted as a member of the Ku Klux Klan in a circulated meme. These experiences, B.W. argued, amounted to severe racial harassment that deprived him of access to equal educational opportunities, a violation of Title VI. The school district’s alleged failure to respond effectively to complaints of this conduct formed the basis of B.W.’s claims. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, including public schools. To succeed on a racial harassment claim under Title VI, plaintiffs must establish that the harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprived the victim of access to educational opportunities; that the school had actual knowledge of the harassment; that it had control over the environment or harassers; and that it was deliberately indifferent to the conduct.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision turned on the first prong of this test. While the court acknowledged that B.W. suffered extensive harassment, it concluded that much of the mistreatment was motivated by political, rather than racial intent. The judges reasoned that terms like “racist,” used by B.W.’s peers, reflected ideological disagreements tied to his conservative views rather than racial slurs. Similarly, the court interpreted other incidents of harassment as insufficiently severe or pervasive to meet the high threshold required under Title VI. The majority also suggested that while the allegations might describe reprehensible conduct, not all instances of bullying or offensive behavior rise to the level of actionable harassment under federal law.

The decision was not without contention. A significant dissent argued that the majority improperly minimized the racial aspects of the harassment, emphasizing that B.W.’s allegations included repeated references to his race by both students and faculty. According to the dissent, the cumulative effect of these incidents, especially when combined with physical assaults and explicit racial comments, should have been sufficient to allow the case to proceed. The dissent further criticized the majority for conflating political and racial animus, noting that the two are not mutually exclusive and that harassment often arises from intersecting motivations. The court ultimately affirmed the dismissal of the case due to a lack of sufficient allegations directly linking the harassment to race as opposed to political identity. However, the ruling leaves unresolved questions about how courts should approach cases where harassment appears to stem from overlapping factors. The dissenting judges raised compelling concerns about the potential for such decisions to undermine Title VI’s protections, particularly for individuals whose experiences of discrimination do not fit neatly into traditional legal categories.

The right to express political opinions and beliefs is foundational in a democratic society. Schools should be spaces where students can explore diverse perspectives and learn to engage with differing viewpoints respectfully. Whether a student supports conservative causes, progressive movements, or anything in between, their voice deserves equal respect and protection. This principle is not just a matter of fairness; it is essential for fostering an environment where open dialogue can thrive. The dismissal of B.W.’s case underscores the challenges of protecting this principle in a climate where race and politics often intersect in complicated ways: the interconnected nature of race and political identity in contemporary discourse. B.W.’s experience as a conservative student cannot be neatly separated into categories of race or politics; the harassment he described appears to stem from a combination of both.

What is deeply troubling is the message this sends to students of all backgrounds. A student who feels silenced for expressing liberal or progressive views should be just as concerned as any student targeted for conservative opinions. The principle at stake is universal: the freedom to hold and articulate one’s beliefs without fear of retaliation. When schools fail to protect this freedom, they not only harm individual students but also undermine the broader purpose of education as a tool for critical thinking, civic engagement, and mutual understanding. The issue is not about favoring one viewpoint or another; it is about ensuring that all perspectives can be expressed without harassment. When a school environment becomes hostile to any group, whether based on race, politics, or any other characteristic, it ceases to fulfill its role as a space for growth and learning. This hostility not only stifles individual expression but also deprives all students of the opportunity to engage with ideas that challenge their own assumptions.

Ultimately, the freedom to speak, to disagree, and to express one’s identity is not just a privilege for some but a right for all. Schools must take this responsibility seriously. The question is not whether we protect the right to expression for a conservative student or a progressive student. The question is whether we protect it for everyone. The stakes are too high to settle for anything less.

János Tamás Papp, PhD is an assistant professor at Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary and a research expert at the National Media and Infocommunications Authority of Hungary. He earned his JD and PhD in Law at the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of the Pázmány Péter Catholic University where he has taught civil and constitutional law since 2015 and became a founding member of the Media Law Research Group of the Department of Private Law. His main research fields are freedom of speech, media law, and issues related to freedom of expression on online platforms. He has a number of publications regarding social media and the law, including a book titled „Regulation of Social Media Platforms in Protection of Democratic Discourses