North Carolina student who was suspended for saying ‘illegal alien' in class to receive $20K, apology from school in settlement
The family of a North Carolina high school student suspended last year for saying 'illegal alien' in English class has dropped their lawsuit against the district in exchange for a public apology and $20,000.
Christian McGhee, 17, received a three-day suspension for using the phrase while discussing word meanings during his English class at Central Davidson High School in Lexington on April 9, 2024.
McGhee's mother, Leah, had filed a lawsuit in which she accused the school and the Davidson County Board of Education of violating her son's First Amendment rights.
Advertisement
3 Christian McGhee, 17, received a three-day suspension for using the phrase while discussing word meanings during his English class at Central Davidson High School in Lexington on April 9, 2024.
Facebook/Leah McGhee
However, McGhee's family and the school board settled on Wednesday after a year-long battle in the courts, according to court documents.
The board has agreed to remove all references to racial bias in McGhee's school record and issue a public apology 'for the mischaracterization of racial bias' in his record, documents show.
Advertisement
The board will also provide him with $20,000 in compensation to help his family with the costs of tuition at his new private school, which he was forced to transfer to after being suspended.
'On Friday, we filed a motion asking the court to approve a settlement that would resolve this matter. Because Christian is a minor, a court hearing is required before the settlement can become final,' McGee's lawyer told the Carolina Journal.
'We'll have more to say after that hearing, which is currently scheduled for July 1st. We're pleased to take this important step toward clearing our client's name.'
3 McGhee's mother, Leah, had filed a lawsuit in which she accused the school and the Davidson County Board of Education of violating her son's First Amendment rights.
Facebook/Leah McGhee
Advertisement
When the incident occurred, a teacher gave the teen an assignment that used the word 'alien,' and he asked, 'Like space aliens or illegal aliens without green cards?'
A Hispanic student in McGhee's class reportedly 'joked' that he was going to 'kick Christian's ass,' so the teacher escalated the matter to Central Davidson's Assistant Principal Eric Anderson.
McGhee's words were deemed offensive and disrespectful to his classmates, prompting Anderson to suspend him.
Advertisement
According to the suspension documents, Anderson 'declared that his comment was racially motivated,' as stated in the suit.
Anderson was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit 'in his individual capacity.'
3 A Hispanic student in McGhee's class reportedly 'joked' that he was going to 'kick Christian's ass,' so the teacher escalated the matter to Central Davidson's Assistant Principal Eric Anderson.
Google Maps
'I didn't make a statement directed towards anyone — I asked a question,' McGee told the Carolina Journal last year.
'I wasn't speaking of Hispanics because everyone from other countries needs green cards, and the term 'illegal alien' is an actual term that I hear on the news and can find in the dictionary,' he added.
When Leah McGhee attempted to appeal the suspension, school administrators refused to budge.
She then hired an attorney from the Liberty Justice Center's Educational Freedom Attorney to help clear her son's name and record.
Advertisement
Leah appeared on the radio show 'The Pete Kaliner Show' on WBT following the filing of the lawsuit and argued the school wasn't justified in labeling her son as a racist.
'It is a term used as federal code, and it is a term that is heard frequently on many news broadcasts,' She said.
'I feel that if this was handled properly in the classroom, it could have easily been used as a teachable moment for everyone.'
Advertisement
While the school district and the teen's family have settled, all involved have agreed that the school suspension will remain on Mchee's record 'because there was a class disruption caused by the comments.'
The board agreed that the settlement is 'fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of Christian.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration closes iconic Dupont Circle Park during WorldPride against city's objections
The Trump administration has closed Dupont Circle Park for the peak weekend of WorldPride in Washington, D.C., fencing off a landmark deeply tied to LGBTQ+ history despite objections from local officials and organizers. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. The National Park Service and U.S. Park Police barricaded the park Thursday evening. The closure, which extends through Sunday night, includes the central fountain, grassy areas, and sidewalks within the circle but excludes the surrounding streets, according to Washington's NBC affiliate, WRC. Earlier this week, D.C. Councilmembers Brooke Pinto and Zachary Parker announced that the Metropolitan Police Department had withdrawn its request to close the park following backlash from community members. But federal officials proceeded with the shutdown anyway and have not responded to requests for comment. Related: National Park Service won't close D.C.'s Dupont Circle during WorldPride after all, officials say 'I am extremely disappointed and frustrated that Dupont Circle Park will be closed this weekend despite MPD's commitment to keep folks safe there,' Pinto said in a statement to The Advocate. 'This closure is disheartening to me and so many in our community who wanted to celebrate World Pride at this iconic symbol of our city's historic LGBTQ+ community. I wish I had better news to share.' According to a June 4 Record of Determination obtained by The Washington Post, the National Park Service said that the closure was necessary 'to secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presence.' Despite MPD's reversal, the U.S. Park Police doubled down. In a memo to NPS Superintendent Kevin Greiss, USPP Commander Major Frank Hilsher wrote that 'the threat of violence, criminal acts, and NPS resource destruction has only increased since MPD's original April 22, 2025, park closure request.' He referenced a local DJ advertising an unpermitted party at Dupont Circle and said, 'Less restrictive measures will not suffice.' The Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, told The Advocate it was not consulted about the decision. 'This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor,' the group said in a statement. 'It's much more than a park — for generations, it's been a gathering place for D.C.'s LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting.' Dupont Circle during Kermadec/Shutterstock 'This sudden move was made overnight without consultation with the Capital Pride Alliance or other local officials,' the statement continued. 'No official WorldPride activities have been planned in Dupont Circle this weekend; thus, no events will be impacted.' While MPD had initially requested the closure, Chief Pamela Smith rescinded that request in a formal letter sent Tuesday. When asked for comment Friday, MPD spokesperson Tom Lynch told The Advocate, 'We have nothing to share beyond the letter rescinding the request, which we shared on Tuesday.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser did not respond to The Advocate's questions, but a spokesperson pointed to an appearance she made on local radio Friday in which she discussed the fencing. She said the closure represented a breakdown in coordination between federal and local authorities. 'I think I put this in the category of an unfortunate error,' Bowser told The Politics Hour with Kojo Nnamdi on WAMU. 'We had a communication with the Park Service… and it looks like at this stage, they're going to proceed with the closure, though we continue talks.' Pressed on whether the decision originated at the White House or with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowser said, 'I can't say that with any clarity. I do know, unfortunately, the public safety issue rose to the top over the cultural celebration.' She added, 'We don't control the NPS, though we will continue to try to lean on them for a different decision.' The Park Service has cited past incidents (none of which were linked to Capital Pride Alliance events), including $175,000 in damage to the fountain during Pride 2023, as well as a recent executive order from President Donald Trump instructing federal agencies to protect national monuments and public spaces. But LGBTQ+ advocates say the move appears politically motivated. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund filed Freedom of Information Act requests this week seeking communications and records from the Department of the Interior, MPD, and the D.C. Mayor's Office. In a statement Tuesday, Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard called the decision 'a dangerous step and outside the legitimate authority of the Park Service.' Staff attorney Sarah Taitz said, 'The LGBTQ+ community and general public deserve to know how and why the decision to shut Pride out of Dupont Circle was made, and how and why that decision was reversed.' Though no official events were scheduled at the park, many saw its closure as symbolic — a federal message during a global celebration of queer life. 'World Pride will continue this weekend,' Pinto said, 'and it will be a time of celebration and commitment to uplift our LGBTQ+ neighbors.' Editor's note: This story has been updated with remarks from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lapeer library board mulls age restrictions on materials despite shaky legal ground
Members of Fight 4 the First Lapeer rally outside the Marguerite deAngeli Library on May 15, 2025 | Photo by Karen Braschayko As members of a Livingston County library board march toward restricting materials deemed inappropriate for children, a similar effort is brewing in nearby Lapeer County, part of what's become a renewed effort in the culture war over children's books, especially those with LGBTQ+ content. Some members of the Lapeer District Library Board have also been working to craft a policy to keep certain materials out of children's hands without running afoul of the law. The effort stretches back several years to 2023, as community members sought to have several books pulled from library shelves. Susan Hough, a member of the steering committee of Fight 4 the First, which advocates against censorship within the library district, said many of the books challenged deal with gender or LGBTQ issues. Among those books was the award-winning 'Gender Queer: A Memoir,' a frequently challenged graphic novel which details author Maia Kobabe's coming of age tale as a person who identifies as nonbinary and asexual. The source of the challenge stems from its inclusion of some drawings depicting nude characters and sexual scenarios, prompting opponents to label it pornographic. Lapeer County Prosecutor John Miller suggested he might file criminal charges against employees or library officials if the book was not pulled from shelves. However, Amy Churchill, who was serving as the director of the library at the time, retained the ACLU of Michigan as legal counsel. The organization sent Miller a letter warning that taking action would threaten First Amendment freedoms, and violate his ethical duties as a prosecutor. When the challenge against the book was rejected, Miller took no action. In the years since that incident, candidates with a conservative ideology have come to hold a majority of seats on the nonpartisan board, with some new members carrying ties to the initial book challenges. In February, Hough said members of Fight 4 the First Lapeer uncovered a memo while reviewing the board's public records responding to a request for an opinion on policies to restrict access to certain books, including proposals to move certain children's books to an adult section, or putting certain books behind glass or the circulation desk, requiring a patron to ask for access. 20FEB2025 Legal Memo Regarding Book Restrictions Anne Seurynk, an attorney with the Foster Swift law firm who the board had retained as counsel, warned that adopting any of the proposals would place the library on 'at best, shaky Constitutional ground' and would put the library at risk of being sued and losing. That could saddle the district with the cost of its own attorneys fees and the fees of their legal challenger. Seurynk also served as corporate counsel for the Cromaine District Library, providing them with a similar notice regarding its own efforts to sequester controversial materials. During a meeting of the Lapeer Tea Party in March, the board's Vice Chair John DeAngelis and Secretary Peggy Brotzke discussed efforts to limit the materials children can access. DeAngelis was unable to offer details on what these restrictions would look like, but told attendees that the board would be consulting with its attorney on the issue. He later offered a rough timeline of six months for presenting potential options. 'We don't want to get sued. We don't want to burn up our funds in attorney fees,' DeAngelis said.'We want to do it the right way, so it will take some time. It won't happen overnight.' DeAngelis and Brotzke did not respond to a request for an interview prior to publication, nor did board Chair Kari Kohlman. DeAngelis during the Board's March meeting put forward a motion to replace Foster Swift with a local firm, Rickard, Denney, Leichliter, Childers & Bosch, with DeAngelis saying he would like to use local counsel to keep the board's money within the community. The motion passed with support from Kohlman, DeAngelis, Brotzke and Trustee Carol Brown, despite protest from former board chair Bill Marquardt and treasurer Perry Valle. On its website, Rickard, Denney, Leichliter, Childers & Bosch describes its legal practice as 'advising and assisting individuals, churches, and other religious organizations in defending and taking full advantage of their religious freedom under federal and state law.' Other areas of practice include general civil litigation, representing individuals with small to medium-sized businesses, estate planning, real estate matters, zoning issues and other issues of land use. Based on Brotzke's information request for the library's collections policy during her first board meeting in February, Hough expects to see proposals to amend the district's collection policy soon. The board's next meeting is set for June 19, with Fight 4 the First Lapeer planning to hold a 'Read-In for Freedom' at DeAngeli Library the same day. The group held a similar rally in mid-May prior to a board meeting that ended up being canceled due to a lack of a quorum. Although Brotzke and DeAngelis focused their concerns on protecting children and ensuring they are unable to access inappropriate materials, Hough said the question of what is appropriate varies from person to person. 'That's why we have library professionals who have been highly trained in child development and in literacy and in book selection, who use many tools, including professional reviews, publisher's reviews, etc., as well as their own personal knowledge to select books and place them in – what are considered by a professional – an appropriate place in the library,' Hough said. When it comes to determining whether a book belongs in a library, Hough said she preferred to trust the professionals. 'I don't know about you, but I prefer to let my medical doctor guide me in medical decisions, and I prefer to let my attorney guide me in legal decisions. And I believe library professionals have the training and the expertise to guide us in what's appropriate,' Hough said. Hough further noted that libraries legally cannot have obscene materials on their shelves. While the Foster Swift memo makes clear that placing restrictions on materials could violate the U.S. Constitution, there's no such thing as First Amendment police, Hough said. That means there's no defense against these types of policies unless community members and free speech organizations are watching and willing to respond. Should the board move forward with the policies and face legal consequences, Hough raised concerns about how that could impact funding for Lapeer libraries. 'That's money that should be used to provide materials for our community, provide services, because it's way beyond books' Hough said, pointing to other benefits like internet access and community programs.'There's just so much in our library that enriches the community, and all of these attacks are going to end up having fiscal outcomes.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Why Trump stopped listening to Netanyahu
In his first term, President Trump was widely seen as a knee-jerk defender of Israel. Now, not so much. Whether and how far Washington splits from Jerusalem — especially on Iran's nuclear-weapons program — has enormous security implications for America, Israel and the wider Middle East. For Trump, personal relationships with foreign leaders equate to the relations between their countries. If he is friendly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then U.S.-Israel relations are good. And vice versa. Today, neither relationship is fully broken, but both are increasingly strained. Seeking the strongly pro-Israel evangelical Christian vote in 2016, Trump pledged to withdraw from President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal and generally provide Israel strong support. He kept that promise, exiting the agreement in 2018. Moreover, Trump moved America's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, merged the separate Palestinian liaison office into the bilateral U.S. mission, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and protected Israel at the U.N. Security Council. The transactional basis for these acts was clear. Having close personal relations with Netanyahu, or at least appearing to, buttressed this political imperative. How good those first-term relations really were invites debate, but a continuing rationale was Trump's desire for reelection in 2020 and, later, 2024. Keeping the pro-Israel vote was a top priority in both races. Even though tensions developed between Trump and Netanyahu, few surfaced publicly. In 2024, Trump held the evangelical vote while losing Jewish voters to Harris by a mere 34 points. Even many Harris voters believed Trump would safeguard Israel's interests. But now that electoral constraint is gone, since Trump has essentially admitted he cannot run again. Meanwhile, earlier irritants — such as Netanyahu garnering publicity for his role in the 2020 strike against Iran's Qassem Soleimani, swiftly congratulating Joe Biden for winning in 2020 and his general aptitude for getting more attention than Trump himself — caused personal relations to grow frostier. And all of this was very likely fed by Trump's recurring envy of Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. So in just four months since the inauguration, Trump concluded a separate peace with Yemen's Houthi rebels, ending inconclusive U.S. efforts to clear the Red Sea maritime passage and leaving Israel in the lurch while Houthi missiles targeted Ben Gurion airport. The White House, without Israel, bargained with Hamas for release of Edan Alexander, their last living American hostage. Trump's first major overseas trip was to three Gulf Arab countries, but he skipped Israel, in direct contrast to his first term. While in Saudi Arabia, Trump lifted sanctions imposed on Syria's Assad dictatorship, clearly breaking with Israel, which retains grave doubts about the militant group that ousted Assad and now rules the country. The record is not entirely negative. Trump sanctioned the International Criminal Court for initiating investigations against Netanyahu and his former defense minister. He broadly, but not unreservedly, backs Israel's campaign against Hamas. But the greatest divergence has emerged over the existential threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program. On April 7, during Netanyahu's second post-inaugural visit to the Oval Office, no one seemed more stunned than he when Trump announced that Steve Witkoff would soon be negotiating with Iran. Trump had previously disclosed writing to Ayatollah Khamenei, expressing openness to negotiation but setting a two-month deadline, implying military force should talks fail. If the clock started from the date Iran received the letter, that two-month period has ended. If it began with the first Witkoff-Iran meeting (April 12 in Oman), the drop-dead date is imminent. Trump could extend the deadline, but that would simply extend Israel's peril. Reports that Witkoff has broached an 'interim' or 'framework' deal further exacerbate the dangers of Tehran tapping Washington along. Time is always on the proliferator's side. While discussions languish, Iran can even further disperse, conceal and harden its nuclear weapons assets. Trump acknowledges pressing Israel more than once not to strike Iran's nuclear program. Such public rebukes to a close ally facing mortal peril are themselves extraordinary, proving how hard Trump is trying to save Witkoff's endeavors. Little is known about the talks' substance, but reports show signs of inconsistency and uncertainty — indeed incompetence — over such critical issues as whether Iran would be permitted to enrich uranium to reactor-grade levels, the original sin of the Obama deal. To say Netanyahu is worried is more than an understatement. Trump's behavior is entirely consistent with greater personal distance from Netanyahu and a desire to be the central figure, rather than Netanyahu's Israel taking dispositive action against Tehran's threat. It may also reflect the isolationist voices within his administration, although not among Republicans generally, as 52 senators and 177 representatives have publicly urged Trump not to throw Iran a lifeline. Israel did not ask permission in 1981 before destroying Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor, or in 2007 before destroying Iran's reactor that was under construction in the Syrian desert. Trump is grievously mistaken if he thinks Netanyahu will 'chicken out,' standing idly by as Iran becomes a nuclear power. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. John Bolton was national security adviser to President Trump from 2018 to 2019 and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006. He held senior State Department posts from 1981 to 1983, from 1989 to 1993 and from 2001 to 2005. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
