Peter Ostroff Stretches BHUSD Lawsuit Beyond the Facts As Usual

A serious civil-rights lawsuit involving Black students deserves careful reporting, an honest examination of the evidence and a process centered on the students and families involved. Peter Ostroff instead uses the still-unproven allegations as a launching point for a sweeping critique of Beverly Hills Unified School District, Board President Judith Manouchehri and several policies that his column never connects to the alleged conduct.

Ostroff begins with a disclaimer. He says he cannot judge the factual or legal merits of the case and makes no prediction about its outcome. He then proceeds to assign responsibility anyway, accusing Manouchehri and other board members of permitting an “undisciplined culture” and asserting that a “no consequence culture” is responsible for the district’s academic standing.

The criticism appeared under the heading “BHUSD Under Fire” in Ostroff’s “Three Star Short Takes” column on page 6 of the Beverly Hills Weekly’s Sept. 17 issue.

That is not analysis of the lawsuit. It is a collection of conclusions that the lawsuit has not established.

A federal complaint contains allegations made by plaintiffs. It is not a verdict, a judicial finding or proof that every allegation occurred as stated. The allegations must be answered, examined through evidence and tested in court. Ostroff acknowledges that basic distinction and then spends the remainder of his column writing as though blame has already been determined.

The lawsuit may ultimately reveal serious failures requiring substantial action. That possibility does not support attaching every existing disagreement about BHUSD governance to the case before the evidence has been examined.

Ostroff claims that district leaders permitted an undisciplined culture, yet his column presents no districtwide disciplinary data supporting that conclusion. He provides no comparison of discipline under the current Board with prior years or neighboring districts. He supplies no evidence showing that attendance policies, punctuality rules or decisions made by Manouchehri caused the incidents described by the plaintiffs.

His reference to recent punctuality changes is particularly disconnected from allegations that reportedly span several years. A recently adopted policy cannot logically explain conduct that allegedly occurred before that policy existed. Ostroff offers no evidence establishing otherwise.

He also declares that the administration provides “little in the way of adult supervision.” That is a serious assertion, but the column provides no staffing figures, supervision schedules, incident-response records or other evidence measuring the level of adult supervision on BHUSD campuses.

Ostroff’s treatment of public comment is equally incomplete. He accuses the Board of relegating public comment to the end of meetings as part of what he calls an “obsession with stifling dissent.” BHUSD’s published procedure states that members of the public may comment on each agendized matter before the Board discusses or acts on it. Non-agendized comments are heard during a designated agenda-hearing period, and written comments may be submitted for the public record.

Whether the district should restore live remote comments is a legitimate policy question. The absence of that option does not, without additional evidence, establish an effort to silence dissent. It certainly does not establish a connection to the racial-harassment allegations in the lawsuit.

Ostroff then attempts to connect his claimed “no consequence culture” to what he describes as BHUSD’s “consistently disappointing rankings.” His column identifies no comparison group, time period or academic measure establishing that causal claim.

The available academic record is considerably different from the picture he presents. BHUSD reported that its districtwide assessment results increased by four percentage points in English language arts, five points in mathematics and nine points in science during the latest reporting period. The district also reported that every California School Dashboard measure reached at least “Meets Standard,” districtwide attendance reached 95% and suspensions declined.

Over two years, the district reported nine-point growth in English and 10-point growth in mathematics. Applications to four-year colleges increased by 37%, while the percentage of Advanced Placement examinations receiving a score of three or higher increased from 84% to 88%.

Those district-reported figures should be evaluated alongside official state results and other relevant measures. California’s published 2024-25 results show that 67.27% of Beverly Hills High School students met or exceeded the English language arts standard and 52.14% met or exceeded the mathematics standard.

None of those results means BHUSD is above criticism or has solved every academic problem. They do mean that any claim of consistent decline or failure must address the documented gains rather than omit them.

Ostroff proposes that the district retain an independent investigator. That proposal can be considered on its merits. But a proposed response is not proof that the Board caused the alleged misconduct, tolerated it or concealed it. Nor does requesting an outside investigation establish that Ostroff’s separate claims about discipline, public comment and academic performance are accurate.

His assertion that the district intends to “deny everything and circle the wagons” is similarly unsupported in the column. A public agency’s refusal to litigate a pending federal case through newspaper statements is not proof of denial, obstruction or indifference. It is common for parties facing active litigation to limit public statements while the case proceeds.

The plaintiffs deserve to have their allegations treated seriously. BHUSD deserves the opportunity to answer them. The public deserves reporting that clearly separates allegations, findings, documented facts and personal opinion.

Ostroff’s column acknowledges that the lawsuit has not been decided, then uses it to advance conclusions the court has not reached and connections his own column does not prove. Strong criticism is fair. Treating assumptions as established facts is not.