A judge has struck down a to rename Washington-Lee High School, though name-change opponents are holding out hope that they may yet convince a court to block the process.
Three current W-L students were hoping to reverse to strip Confederate general Robert E. Lee鈥檚 name from the building, arguing that the Board misled the public and failed to follow its own established procedures in making the decision back in June.
But聽Arlington County Circuit Court Chief Judge William Newman ruled Wednesday that the students didn鈥檛 have grounds to challenge the vote, and that the Board didn鈥檛 commit any errors egregious enough to warrant the legal action.
Though he stopped short of tossing the case out of court or barring the students from adjusting their claims, he also granted a motion by School Board attorneys to dismiss the case, throwing up a key legal roadblock for the suit.
鈥淓ven though I can see things could鈥檝e been done differently here, I can also see that, under the statute, there鈥檚 nothing wrong here,鈥� Newman said.
For W-L alumni upset with the name change, about a dozen of whom watched the proceedings Wednesday afternoon, the result isn鈥檛 necessarily unexpected, but is disappointing nonetheless. Many have spent the months since the renaming vote aggressively pleading their case, with some even to one of the Board members who supported the name change.
Dean Fleming, one W-L alum who鈥檚 helped marshal opposition to the name change, told ARLnow that the ruling won鈥檛 deter those efforts, as it merely gives opponents 鈥渁nother bite at the apple.鈥澛燡onathon Moseley, the attorney representing the students, was a bit more hesitant, however.
鈥淲e do have the ability to rewrite [the suit],鈥� Moseley said after the proceedings. 鈥淏ut we will have to think about whether a rewrite will cure what the judge saw to be a problem.鈥�
Chiefly, Newman agreed with many of the procedural arguments raised by the Board鈥檚 attorney, John Cafferky.
Moseley and the students claimed that the Board erred when it first voted to change its policy governing the names of all Arlington Public Schools, then decided to initiate a name change for Washington-Lee immediately afterward, citing Lee鈥檚 鈥減rincipal legacy鈥� as a soldier for the Confederacy and defender of slavery.
Yet Cafferky pointed out that the it laid out in September 2017 to govern the name change deliberations. Though the Board did circulate some other possible guidelines in January that would鈥檝e called for another round of community engagement before a name-change vote, Cafferky noted that the Board never formally adopted that change, and stuck with its initially established procedures.
鈥淓veryone knew darn well that renaming the school was a possibility,鈥� Cafferky said. 鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 a surprise, because by that point, there had been all kinds of engagement for the past nine to 10 months.鈥�
Moseley argued that it would鈥檝e made more sense for the Board to 鈥済o back to the community, talk to them, advertise and then have a vote鈥� before changing W-L鈥檚 moniker. But Cafferky also charged that it was within the Board鈥檚 discretion to guide how the process was managed, noting that 鈥渞enaming procedure is not a provision of law.鈥�
鈥淭he school could hold an essay contest to change the name or take nominations from the floor during a meeting,鈥� Cafferky said. 鈥淭hey have a great deal of flexibility here.鈥�
Procedure aside, Moseley and the students claimed that the school鈥檚 name was 鈥減art of their community experience,鈥� and changing it would force them to shell out cash to change the names of uniforms and clubs. Yet Cafferky argued that such negative impacts on the students were 鈥渟peculative,鈥� considering that Washington-Lee won鈥檛 actually receive a new name until the Board votes on the matter next month.
Similarly, he pointed out that the Board is 鈥淲ashington-Loving鈥� and 鈥淲ashington-Liberty鈥� as the new names for the school, which could avert the need for any cumbersome logo or uniform changes by maintaining the 鈥淲-L鈥� acronym.
With Newman鈥檚 ruling, the Board鈥檚 renaming work is set to move ahead (though it has not been without ). The Board will review new name proposals for the first time tomorrow (Thursday), then is set to vote on the matter on Jan. 10.
Moseley said his clients may well file an amended suit before that vote, though the impending holidays could complicate scheduling.
