L.W. v. Toms River regional schools and Hannah Arendt's theory of judgment
Creators: name: Harrison, Timothy A.
Publisher: name: No Publisher Supplied
Year: 2016

description: While the New Jersey State Legislature created the nation’s first state anti-discrimination law in 1945, the protections that the statute affords the state’s citizens has evolved over the years. The Law Against Discrimination was written with the explicit intent to protect the civil rights of New Jersey’s citizens. The protections against discrimination that the statute provides are expansive and cover virtually any protected characteristic imaginable, including “affectional or sexual orientation.” In a landmark anti-discrimination case, Lehmann v. Toys R Us, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court established legal standards by which an employer could be held liable for discrimination under the LAD by creating a hostile work environment. However, the Court had not established these same LAD protections for student-on-student harassment based on sexual orientation.    School leaders face many challenges daily, not the least of which is harassment, intimidation and bullying. The victims of these incidents are from various protected classes, including those students who are or who are perceived to be queer. Often, school leaders simply are not equipped to practice good judgment when dealing with these issues and make poor decisions. Often, the poor judgment and the resulting decisions have dire legal consequences to school districts. I have conducted a study that not only chronicles the events that led to the establishment of LAD protections for students who are victims of bias-based peer harassment, but I’ve also analyzed the thinking, judging and acting of the various adults involved in this case. The following research questions guided this study: 1) What was the chain of events in the Louis White case that ultimately led to the establishment of LAD protections for students who are victims of bias-based peer harassment?  2) To what extent do the decisions and actions of lawmakers, school administrators, jurists and the Director of the Division on Civil Rights embody the characteristics of Arendtian judgment?    I pursued these research questions using a historical legal case study. My specific issue of judging, deciding and acting within an Arendtian theoretical framework, is bounded within a contemporary political history of the Toms River School District.        I have conducted a study chronicling the fourteen-year legal saga of a former student in Toms River Regional Schools who was harassed and bullied from the time he was in fourth grade until his freshman year of high school. The data collection leaned heavily on primary sources such as federal and state statute, administrative code, rules of court, administrative rulings and copious amounts of case law. Using traits of Arendt’s theory, I analyzed the endeavors of each major individual in the case. The major traits that emerged included common sense, invisibles, action, meaningfulness, liberation and freedom, discussion and debate, particulars and universals, thinking for the prevention of evil, moral judgment and reflective judgment. I found that all of the players in this saga possessed some Arendtian traits of thinking and judging, but the legislators, Director, appellate court judges and Supreme Court justices exhibited the greatest number of these traits. In other words, these individuals practiced “good judgment”. Although these findings are not generalizable, they are meaningful and have implications for researchers, policy makers and practitioners.