STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF LEXINGTON

SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM CAUCUS,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. ___________

v.

LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

ONE, and GERRITA L. POSTLEWAIT, in
her official capacity as Superintendent
of the Lexington County School District COMPLAINT
One,
(Jury Trial Requested)
Defendants.

1. This action challenges Lexington County School District One’s refusal

to comply with the duly enacted law of the State of South Carolina preventing schools

from indoctrinating students in the critical race theory-derived idea that individuals

should be judged by the color of their skin.

2. Under South Carolina law, schools may not use state monies to

indoctrinate students or staff in any of the following Critical Race Theory-Derived

Ideas: “(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an

individual, by virtue of his race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,

whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an individual should be discriminated

against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his race or sex; (4) an

individual’s moral standing or worth is necessarily determined by his race or sex;

(5) an individual, by virtue of his race or sex, bears responsibility for actions

committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (6) an individual

should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on

account of his race or sex; (7) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist
or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of

another race; and (8) fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to

members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.” 2022-2023 Appropriations Bill

H. 5150, Part 1B Section 1, H630, § 1.93.

3. What this law prohibits, in essence, is using state money to indoctrinate

teachers and students in the theories of racial primacy, which “reject the philosophy

of ‘colorblindness’” as inherently racist. 1

4. Those theories contradict America’s central promise, dating from the

Declaration of Independence’s “self-evident” truth that “that all men are created

equal”: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes

among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

5. Though one branch of the racial primacy theory began in the legal

academy under the term “Critical Race Theory,” the theory’s adherents have

rebranded the idea in the K-12 education context and elsewhere as antiracism,

culturally responsive teaching, or diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is all the same

pernicious, racist nonsense. Schools that adhere to these theories teach that students

are oppressors or oppressed based on skin color and sex. They reject the notion of

“colorblindness,” labeling it a manifestation of white supremacy. They engage in

segregation of classes, discipline, and activities. All this cements racial castes within

schools, leading impressionable young students to resent each other because of the

color of their skin.

6. Despite South Carolina law’s clear prohibition on indoctrinating

students with Critical Race Theory-Derived Ideas, Lexington County School District

One continues to develop and use curricula that promotes these beliefs. Through

1
J. Fortin, Critical Race Theory: A Brief History, N.Y. Times (Nov. 8, 2021), https://www.nytimes. com/
article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html.

2
these curricula, along with mandatory teacher and staff training in racist concepts,

the School District is violating state law as it forces racist ideology on young children.

7. The School District’s enabler is EL Education, which supplies curricula

and professional training for multiple schools in the District. EL Education is

obsessed with race. According to its website, “antiracism” is “at the core” of its

curriculum. Its trainers instruct teachers to “[u]se your understanding of racism and

CRT to leverage equity in your role through a culturally responsive lens,” including

“[d]ecolonizing the curriculum.” A professional development specialist who came to

the School District explained that “decolonizing” means to “decenter[] whiteness.”

8. In short, the School District stands in violation of state law prohibiting

the indoctrination of teachers and students with racist ideologies using state funds.

The School District is also infringing South Carolina’s guarantee of equal treatment

under the law and laws that protect students from harassment in schools. This Court

should enjoin the School District’s ongoing legal violations, which harm

impressionable students who the School District seeks to turn against each other

based on their race.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff South Carolina Freedom Caucus is a legislative special interest

caucus comprised of members of the South Carolina House of Representatives. The

Caucus seeks to promote conservative principles like the rule of law and equal

protection for all citizens under the law. The Caucus has a significant interest in

ensuring that laws enacted by the General Assembly are given effect. Members of the

Caucus include Rep. Adam Morgan, Rep. RJ May, Rep. Josiah Magnuson, Rep. Mike

Burns, Rep. Bill Chumley, Rep. Bobby Cox, Rep. Patrick Haddon, Rep. Stewart Jones,

Rep. Steven Long, Rep. Ryan McCabe, Rep. Alan Morgan, Rep. Melissa Oremus, and

Rep. Ashley Trantham.

3
 10. Defendant Lexington County School District One is a public school

district in Lexington County, South Carolina. Its headquarters are located at 100

Tarrar Springs Rd., Lexington, SC 29072.

11. Defendant Gerrita L. Postlewait is sued in her official capacity as the

Superintendent of Lexington County School District One.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to S.C. Const. Art.

V, § 11 and S.C. Code Ann. § 14-5-350.

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the

Defendants live, reside, or do business in Lexington County, South Carolina.

14. Venue is proper in this circuit under South Carolina Code § 15-7-30

because the Defendants live, reside, or do business in Lexington County, South

Carolina, and the acts and omissions that are the subject of this action occurred in

Lexington County, South Carolina.

FACTS

15. EL Education is a company that seeks “to transform public schools and

districts” to provide “equitable outcomes” through a language arts curriculum,

professional development, and school design services. 2

16. EL Education lists Meadow Glenn Elementary, Meadow Glenn Middle,

Lakeside Middle School, and River Bluff High School in Lexington County School

District One as “partners.” 3

17. EL Education’s partners “implement the top-rated EL Education K-8

Language Arts curriculum.” 4

2
EL Education, Our Approach, https://eleducation.org/who-we-are/our-approach (visited Nov. 15,
2022).
3
EL Election, Our Partners, https://eleducation.org/who-we-are/our-partners (visited Nov. 15, 2022).
4
EL Education, District Partnerships, https://eleducation.org/what-we-offer/curriculum-services/

4
 18. According to its website describing that curriculum, EL Education is an

“antiracist organization” that “built our curriculum with equity in mind”: “We must

iterate on our curriculum with antiracism at the core.” Thus, EL Education trumpets

that “[t]he majority of core texts in grades 6-8 were authored by people of color” and

“[a] majority of texts in the EL Education curriculum feature central characters who

are people of color” (66%). “To align with” EL Education’s “27-year history . . . rooted

in beliefs about equity our vision and values,” “future iterations of our curriculum

will more explicitly empower students to be antiracist.” Likewise, its curriculum

instructs teachers “to more explicitly be antiracist and teach antiracism”: “teachers

must be empowered to recognize bias and support students to go beyond awareness

to disruption.” 5
19. EL Education views “education as a powerful engine for disrupting

structural racism.” One “pillar[] of educational equity” promoted by its curriculum is

“[e]xplicit anti-racist discussion, practice, and action.” According to EL Education,

“Anti-racism means taking an explicit stand against racism. We subscribe to author

Ibram X. Kendi’s definition: ‘One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a

racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe

space of “not racist.”’” 6

20. In Kendi’s view, “The most threatening racist movement is . . . the

regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ [society].” I. Kendi, How To Be an

Antiracist 20 (2019). He believes that “[t]he only remedy to racist discrimination is

antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present

discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Id. at 19.

district-partnerships (visited Nov. 15, 2022).

5
EL Education, How does the EL Education K-8 Language Arts curriculum address topics of race,
racism, antiracism and cultural proficiency?, https://perma.cc/A9R3-J6MF.
6
EL Education, Our Commitment to Equity and Antiracism, https://perma.cc/SGJ7-TG2C.

5
 21. For instance, EL Education’s eighth grade curriculum assigns Harper

Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird primarily to criticize the book for “center[ing] on the

white experience of anti-black racism and present[ing] African American characters

with limited agency.” The assignment “highly recommend[s] supplementing this

reading with additional texts centering the voices of Black authors and characters

and explicitly naming the problematic nature of the narrative in your teaching.”

Teachers and students are told to “consider how the story could be reimagined to

center the Black experience and the intersectionality of experiences and social

identities.” 7
22. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools recently chose EL Education’s

curriculum “because across all of its modules and topics they begin to address issues

of social justice, racism, anti-racism and cultural proficiency.” 8

23. Beyond curricular indoctrination in critical race theory, EL Education

also indoctrinates schoolteachers. In EL Education’s view, “We are at a critical

moment in time to actualize education . . . as an engine for equity.” “[T]eacher

professional learning for equity must” “include centering it on content related to

equity and critical pedagogy.” 9

24. As one example, a December 2020 presentation to Ohio educators by EL

Education’s Director of Partnerships, a self-proclaimed, “Critical Race Theory (CRT)

Scholar,” focused on antiracism and critical race theory. The presentation called for

educators to be anti-racist in “your PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL lives” and

“[u]se your understanding of racism and CRT to leverage equity in your role through

a culturally responsive lens,” including “[d]ecolonizing the curriculum.” “[O]ne of the

7
EL Education, Considerations for Cultural Responsiveness, https://perma.cc/AJ4B-7A7U.
8
Ann Doss Helms, WFAE, CMS Anti-Racist Reading Curriculum Faces Changes For Remote
Instruction, https://www.wfae.org/education/2020-08-21/cms-anti-racist-reading-curriculum-faces-
changes-for-remote-instruction (Aug. 21, 2020).
9
EL Education, Teaching for Equity and Deeper Learning: How Does Professional Learning Transfer
to Teachers’ Practice and Influence Students’ Experiences?, https://perma.cc/UW9X-8E3G.

6
first elements of understanding CRITICAL RACE THEORY,” according to the

presentation, is “[c]entering the LIVED EXPERIENCES of BIPOC (BLACK,

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF COLOR)” and “LGBTQ+ communities.” Quoting CRT

proponent Ta-Nahisi Coates, the presentation tells educators to “[f]orget about

intentions”: “ignore the head and keep your eyes on the body.” Accordingly, “[b]eing

anti-racist” is different from being “not racist”; anti-racists must be obsessed with

race. For instance, to be anti-racist, the presentation requires teachers to

acknowledge that “whites benefit unfairly from structural racism.” A “key point” of

the presentation was that “CRT trainings are essential for school leaders, teachers

and staff.” 10
25. In September 2022, an EL Education professional development

specialist traveled to EL Education schools in Lexington County School District One

to provide training.

26. Echoing Dr. Belle, the specialist described her current focus as

“decolon[izing] schools,” explaining that in education, “decolonizing” means

“decentering whiteness, thinking about equity, and thinking about antiracism.”

27. The specialist explained that “[i]t’s really easy for us to say ‘we want to

increase test scores,’” but “whose test scores? Equally?” Instead of equal

opportunities, what she was “really focused on” in school partnerships was “achieving

equitable outcomes,” such as “[t]rying to get more students of color into AP classes.”

The specialist said that “we know that state tests are inequitable.”

28. The specialist highlighted school staff “crew” meetings, which are

mandated by EL Education and ask teachers “what aspects of my identity are visible”

and “how do those show up in my classroom.” These questions are intended to “trickle-

Crystal Belle, Committing to Culturally Responsive and Anti-Racist Leadership Practices to Improve
10

Equitable Outcomes for All Students, https://perma.cc/Q824-5P5J.

7
down” to student “crew” classes, which are daily, 45-minute meetings with the same

group of students to discuss non-academic topics. 11

29. In August 2022, an EL Education trainer went to Lakeside Middle

School to provide training to faculty and staff, specifically about the curriculum for

grades six through eight.

30. According to the trainer, “[w]e are working on a curriculum” that “is

inclusive of culturally relevant teaching.” The trainer explained that “[s]ome of the

topics that we explore” “go against mainstream teaching.”

31. For instance, the curriculum promotes “counter-narrative[s] to some of

the mainstream beliefs.” So “every time you read the Constitution, you’re going to

read a counter-narrative that is by some person of color” that “counters” the

statement. “The law might say all men are created,” but a counter-narrative would

be required.

32. According to the trainer, the curriculum’s reception “[d]epends on what

kind of teacher you are: if you are a teacher who celebrates diverse cultures, then you

would be open” to the curriculum.

33. Training for teachers involves demanding that they “tell [the trainer]

about your privileges” and “what parts of your identity are privileged.”

34. The trainer emphasized that “We have some people who are willing to

be allies, and some people who are willing to be co-conspirators.” An “ally” offers

general support, while a “co-conspirator” says (in the trainer’s words) “I’m willing to

do this work in my classroom even if I get in trouble.” The trainer placed this

discussion around South Carolina policies prohibiting teaching racist ideologies in

schools.

11
See EL Education, Elements of a Crew Meeting, https://eleducation.org/resources/elements-of-a-
crew-meeting (visited Nov. 15, 2022).

8
 35. In a publication, the trainer has written that “pedagogies and

assessments that are culturally responsive [are] about helping both teachers and

students to develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status

quo of the current social order.” 12

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of H. 5150

36. The allegations of the above paragraphs are incorporated into this cause

of action.

37. H. 5150 prohibits Defendants from using state monies to indoctrinate

students or teachers in Critical Race Theory-Derived Ideas.

38. Defendants are training teachers in Critical Race Theory-Derived Ideas,

developing curriculum and lesson plans for students based on those ideas, and

otherwise disregarding the strictures of H. 5150.

39. Defendants’ failure to adhere to H. 5150 is ultra vires and should be

enjoined by this Court.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Constitutional Right to Equal Protection

40. To the extent they are not inconsistent with this cause of action, the

allegations of the above paragraphs are incorporated into this cause of action.

41. Article I, section 3 of S.C. Constitution provides: “The privileges and

immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution

12
Gertrude Tinker Sachs, Tarika Sullivan, et al., Developing Culturally Relevant Literacy Assessments
for Bahamian Children, Int’l J. of Progressive Educ., Vol. 14 No. 1, at 144 (2018).

9
shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the

laws.”

42. South Carolina’s guarantee of equality the law includes a promise that

similarly-situated public school students will be treated the same regardless of their

race.

43. By developing professional training, curricula, and lesson plans around

Critical Race Theory-Derived Ideas and forcing students and teachers to participate,

Defendants have engaged in impermissible racial stereotyping, differential treatment

based on race, and promotion of a racially hostile environment. These actions

discriminate based on race and therefore violate equal protection.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-130

44. To the extent they are not inconsistent with this cause of action, the

allegations of the above paragraphs are incorporated into this cause of action.

45. Under South Carolina’s Safe School Climate Act, “[a] person may not

engage in” “harassment, intimidation, or bullying,” which includes an act “that is

reasonably perceived to have the effect of” “harming a student physically or

emotionally” or “insulting or demeaning a student or group of students causing

substantial disruption in, or substantial interference with, the orderly operation of

the school.” S.C. Code Ann. §§ 59-63-120, -130.

46. By developing curricula and lesson plans around Critical Race Theory-

Derived Ideas, such as students being oppressors based on their skin color,

10
Defendants have harmed and demeaned students. They have also caused disruption

to the orderly operation of schools.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-40

47. To the extent they are not inconsistent with this cause of action, the

allegations of the above paragraphs are incorporated into this cause of action.

48. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-40, no student may “be excluded from any

public school in the State on account of race, creed, color or national origin.”

49. By developing curricula and lesson plans around Critical Race Theory-

Derived Ideas, Defendants are de facto excluding students from schools based on their

race.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Constitutional Right to Education

50. To the extent they are not inconsistent with this cause of action, the

allegations of the above paragraphs are incorporated into this cause of action.

51. Art. XI, § 3, of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right to

a minimally adequate education. Abbeville Cty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 335 S.C. 58, 6

(1999).

52. By passing H. 5150, the legislative and executive branches affirmed that

education free of critical race theory indoctrination is a vital element of a minimally

adequate education. See id. at 69 (“[T]he constitutional duty to ensure the provision

of a minimally adequate education to each student in South Carolina rests on the

legislative branch of government.”).

11
 53. Defendants are not adhering to H. 5150.

54. By developing curricula and lessons plans around Critical Race Theory-

Derived Ideas, Defendants have failed in their constitutional duty to provide a

minimally adequate education.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered against

Defendants: (1) DECLARING that Defendants have violated H. 5150, S.C. Code Ann.

§ 59-63-130, S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-40, and the South Carolina Constitution,

(2) ENJOINING Defendants from continued violations, (3) AWARDING Plaintiff its

attorneys’ fees and costs; and (4) GRANTING other relief that the Court may deem

just, proper, or equitable.

Dated: November 16, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

_s/ ___________________ s/ ________________

DAN D’ALBERTO CHRISTOPHER MILLS
(SC Bar No. ________) (SC Bar No. 101050)
D’Alberto Graham & Grimsley Spero Law LLC
508 Meeting Street 557 East Bay St. #22251
West Columbia, SC 29169 Charleston, South Carolina 29413
Telephone: (803) 764-3919 Telephone: (843) 606-0640
[email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

12