编者按：圣拉蒙山谷联合学区（San Ramon Valley Unified School District）最近赔偿亚裔学生65万美元的案子在本地引起巨大反响。Nextdoor上邻居们七嘴八舌争论不休。很多不明真相的群众认为受害者家庭滥用诉讼让学区就范，舆论一时对亚裔受害者家庭非常不利。SVCAF三年里一直跟受害者一家保持联系，了解其中艰辛。幸好有真正花时间阅读法庭公开文件的居民写了案件的总结。现摘录如下，让华人社区也清楚本案的来龙去脉。

Case summary     案件摘要

I read the original complaint filed when this all started back in 2017, and the one in these documents looks pretty much the same, with apparently some amendments along the way. In broad strokes the legal complaint was:
这诉状始于2017年，我读过其原始档案，这些文件中的有一份资料看起来几乎一样，只是有一些明显的修改。大致的法律控诉是：

The student was an exceptional student with great grades and accomplishments.
这个学生成绩优异，出类拔萃。

In conjunction with running for office the student shot a video with some other students. Two of those friends were Muslim Afghan-Americans who played the antagonists and adlibbed their own parts as there was no script.
在竞选职务时，这名学生与其他一些学生一起拍摄了一段视频。这些朋友中有两个是阿富汗裔美国穆斯林，扮演反角，即兴演出，没有脚本。

Another student actually took all the raw video and edited it and uploaded it before the student even had a chance to review it.
实际上另有一个学生拿走了所有的视频原稿，自行编辑后就发布到了网上，这名被案子牵连的学生连审核一下的机会都没有。

The video was produced off campus, was not even produced and posted by the student in question but another student, and only viewed by a small number of individuals with the YouTube stats showing only 30 views.
该视频是在校园外制作的，被质疑的学生并没有制作和发布该视频，这是由另一个学生做的，且仅有极少数人看了这个视频，YouTube统计的播放量只有30次。

The next morning a student sitting next to him let him know that a couple students who saw it found it offensive, so he immediately took it down. (Obviously, the intent was not to offend, because if it was, he would have just kept it up right?).
第二天早上，坐在他旁边的一个学生告诉他，有几个看过这个视频的学生觉得它令人反感，所以他立即将视频下线。（显然，他的目的不是要冒犯别人，否则，他就会一直公开这视频，是不是？）

Janet Willford (apparently the main instigator of the actions against the student) had a close relationship with the family of the person running against him for office (they have fellowship at the same church where Willford’s father in law is a deacon). Her friend’s family stood to directly benefit if the student was removed as an ASB President candidate. When she couldn’t get her hands on the video she contrived to pretend she was looking to help protect the student and convinced the boys who made it to meet with her and show her the video bringing her a copy. Immediately thereafter she showed the video to other administrators as well as students in the leadership program.
Janet Willford 珍妮特·威尔福德（显然是反对这名学生的主要煽动者）与他的竞选对手的家人关系密切（她们在同一所教堂联谊，威尔福德的岳父是该教堂的执事)  。如果该学生被取消ASB主席候选人资格，她朋友的家人将直接受益。她因为拿不到视频，就假装自己是来保护这个学生的，说服制作视频的男孩们来见她，让该学生给她看了视频，还给了她一份拷贝。随后，她立即将视频展示给其他学校管理人员以及参加领导力班的学生。

Thereafter ensued a nightmare of hours of intense interrogation, threats, and intimidation and disqualification from the ASB Presidency.
随之而来的是噩梦般的几个小时的激烈审讯、威胁、恐吓和被取消竞选ASB主席的资格。

Janet Willford also disseminated private information about the student and the video out to at least one other school and private friends in an attempt to bring public shame and pressure on the student.
Janet Willford珍妮特·威尔福德还将这名学生的个人信息和视频泄露给至少一个同事和一些私人朋友，试图公开羞辱这名学生，给他压力。

Although defendants (various members of the school and SRVUSD leadership) later admitted there was no hate speech in the video punished the student.
尽管被告（  学校和SRVUSD领导）后来承认视频中并没有仇恨的言论，但这名学生却遭受了惩罚。

There was no clear standard set for “appropriate” or “permissible” content, especially given that other many other videos reviewed by the same teacher produced by other students featured the same sorts of things and were not punished, flagged as inappropriate, or if so were punished much less severely.
学校对于“合适的”或“允许的”内容并没有明确的标准，尤其是考虑到其他学生制作的由同一名教师审阅的许多视频也有类似的内容，而无人因此受到惩罚，或者即使被标记为不合适，惩罚也要轻得多。

The punishment was overly severe in response raising the question of racism against the student by the defendants, or at the very least discrimination and unequal treatment.
对该视频的惩罚过于严厉，由此引发质疑被告对学生有种族偏见，或至少是歧视和不平等对待。

The first amendment and various court cases establishing precedent for how it is to be interpreted made it appear that those rights were being violated by the extreme nature of the attack and punishment of the student.
第一项修正案和解释如何处理此类案件的各种法庭案例表明对这名学生的惩罚和极端攻击侵犯了那些权利。

Three months after having been punished, the decision by SRVUSD was reversed and he was re-instated as Junior Class President and also informed that he had also received the most votes for the ASB Presidency and had won becoming the first Asian American ASB President at the School.
在被处罚三个月后，SRVUSD的决定被推翻，他被重新任命为11年级主席，并被告知他在ASB主席【全校学生主席】选举中也获得了最多的选票，并成为该校历史上第一位亚裔ASB主席。

That didn’t stop Mrs Willford and others who continued to attack the student by staging walkouts and super emotional District Board Meeting. (What teenager isn’t going to get emotional after being whipped into a hysterical frenzy by an adult mentor they trust?)
但这并没有阻止Wilford和其他人继续攻击这名学生，她们上演了罢课和超级煽情的学区委员会议。(有哪个青少年不会在被他们信任的成人老师反复敲打洗脑之后变得极度疯狂呢?)

Here’s some direct quotes of other SRVUSD attacks, “Nate’s history teacher, Heidi Stepp, falsely reported to the media, local politicians, Muslim organizations, and numerous other non-school officials that Nate mocked and disparaged Muslims and that he refused to apologize. Ann Katzburg, another District employee, sent correspondence to numerous non-school officials regarding Nate and the Parody. In one email to Defendant Schmitt and at least one other non-school official, Ms.Katzburg falsely reported that the District determined after an investigation that Nate violated the California Penal Code’s “hate crime” statute in connection with the Parody. In another letter sent to more than 1,000 people, Ms. Katzburg accused Nate of engaging in religious discrimination against Muslim Americans in violation of the Civil Rights Act.”
以下是其他SRVUSD攻击的一些直接引语，”Nate的历史老师Heidi Stepp海蒂·斯特普向媒体、当地政客、穆斯林组织和许多其他的非学校官员错误地报告，说Nate挖苦和贬低穆斯林并且拒绝道歉。另一名学区雇员Ann Katzburg安·卡兹伯格给许多非学校官员发了关于Nate和视频的信件。在一封致被告Schmitt 施密特和至少另一名非学校官员的电子邮件中，卡兹伯格错误地报告说，经过调查，学区认定于Nate在模仿他人的过程中违反了《加州刑法》的“仇恨犯罪”条例。在另一封发给1000多人的信中，卡兹伯格指控Nate对美国穆斯林进行宗教歧视，违反了《民权法》。”

In summary, the case was about the SRVUSD member’s “unconstitutional conduct caused Nate to suffer actual damages, including multiple constitutional deprivations, severe emotional distress, financial loss, reputational harm, and fear resulting from, among other things, actual threats of violence to Nate’s life. Nate is entitled to the relief detailed below, and respectfully requests that the Court, after a trial or dispositive motion on the merits, enter judgment in favor of Nate, and award all relief available at law and equity to which Nate is justly entitled.”
综上所述，本案是关于SRVUSD成员“违反宪法的行为导致Nate遭受了实际的伤害，包括多次被剥夺宪法权利，造成极度的精神痛苦，经济损失，名誉损害，以及其他对Nate的生命构成实质威胁所带来的恐惧。Nate有权获得以下详细的补偿，并尊敬地请求法院在经过审判或对案情的决定性动议后，作出对Nate有利的判决，并裁决Nate有权获得所有合法的公平的补偿。”

结束语：遗憾的是，因为教师工会的袒护，涉案的老师至今没有一个受到任何惩罚。