A federal civil trial is underway in Virginia over the decision to restore Confederate names to two Shenandoah County public schools, a move that has sparked legal, political, and community-wide debate.
The lawsuit was filed by the NAACP Virginia State Conference alongside five students who argue that the Shenandoah County School Board’s 2024 vote to revert the schools’ names violates federal civil rights protections. The plaintiffs contend the names infringe on the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act by creating a racially hostile learning environment.
Testimony on Harm and History
Across multiple days of testimony, students and experts described the emotional and psychological toll Confederate symbolism can have on Black students. Witnesses explained that names honoring Confederate figures are not neutral historical references but reminders of segregation and exclusion.
On Tuesday, sports studies scholar Amy Bass testified that Confederate imagery in school and athletic settings carries lasting associations with white supremacy and segregation. She pointed to lingering symbolism tied to Stonewall Jackson, including imagery that remained in school materials years after a prior renaming effort.
Earlier in the trial, historians detailed how Stonewall Jackson High School was originally built for white students only and remained segregated into the mid-1960s. Testimony described Confederate flags flown during construction and mascots intended to deter Black enrollment, framing the school’s original naming as part of Massive Resistance to desegregation.
Students who testified said the reinstated names made them feel unwelcome, invisible, or burdened. One student described the restored name as an emotional weight that followed him daily, even as he continued to excel academically.
School Board Defense and Political Context
The defense began presenting its case with testimony from Shenandoah County School Board Chair Dennis Barlow, who voted in favor of restoring the Confederate names. Barlow said his primary concern as a board member has been academic performance, but community backlash to the 2020 renaming placed the issue back on the board’s agenda.
Barlow acknowledged that returning to the Confederate names could be unsettling to Black families, but maintained that he had not observed racist intent driving the decision. During cross-examination, however, plaintiffs introduced documents suggesting Barlow was aware of racial concerns yet supported the reversal anyway.
The trial has also focused heavily on transparency. Several board members invoked legislative privilege to withhold testimony and internal communications, prompting repeated warnings from the judge. He cautioned that the board could not selectively shield information while relying on it to defend its actions.
Disputes over emails obtained through public records requests further underscored tensions, with the judge sustaining objections when the defense attempted to introduce documents plaintiffs said they had never seen in full.
Advocacy Groups and Public Influence
Plaintiffs also examined the role of the Coalition for Better Schools, a local advocacy group that supported reinstating the Confederate names. Evidence showed board members’ ties to the group and fundraising efforts framed as defending the school board against “political narratives.”
Depositions revealed that the coalition conducted targeted mail surveys and raised money specifically tied to the name-change controversy, blurring the line between community advocacy and political organizing.
What Comes Next
As the trial nears its conclusion, the judge has indicated that a ruling may take months and is likely to be appealed regardless of outcome. The case now stands as a high-profile test of how courts weigh historical legacy against students’ civil rights — and whether school names can themselves constitute discrimination.
SOURCE: WHSV3