In the short time that I have been publishing this blog, I have repeatedly discussed the reported 2018 “Settlement Agreement” between the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and Hopkins Public Schools (Hopkins 270). [See here, here, here, and here.]
While I explained in my Introduction post that I am an attorney, I didn’t go into detail. I have been licensed for nearly 30 years, and have spend the last two-thirds of my career at the intersection of law and technology, developing an expertise in electronic evidence. I know that you cannot rely on what people tell you a document says; you need to go to the source: the original, contemporaneously created material. So in this case, I wanted to find the “Settlement Agreement” and see for myself what it contains.
Therefore, a few weeks ago I submitted a data request to the MDHR for a copy of the reported “Settlement Agreement.” The Data Practices Coordinator at MDHR kindly responded by telling me that the Agreement was not available. When I questioned further, they informed me that a highly publicized final agreement between a state agency and a public entity was somehow not public data. In support of this position, they cited two sections of Minnesota Statutes.
Being a lawyer, I knew that the two cited sections were not relevant, and it was clear to me that I was being stonewalled. While I submitted an appeal, I spoke with a friend who made an excellent suggestion for where I might find this data archived on the internet. And … EUREKA!!!
Download the Agreement for Yourself!
The Agreement is available below for you to download yourself either from this blogging site or directly from the MDHR website (as of the day this post is published).
Click here to download the Agreement directly from the MDHR Website
This was NOT a Settlement Agreement!
First and foremost: Hopkins 270 signed a Collaboration Agreement, NOT a Settlement Agreement. Look at the header at the top of the document above. It is titled as a Collaboration Agreement.
MDHR Did Not Allege Hopkins 270 Had Been Discriminating Based on Race
Why is it a Collaboration Agreement, not a Settlement Agreement as publicly announced by MDHR? The answer is laid out in Paragraph 11 of the Agreement:
11. The parties have mutually agreed to enter into this Collaboration Agreement to work together on a nation-wide and state-wide issue. This Collaboration Agreement is not an indication or an admission of any liability or wrongdoing by or on behalf of either party. The Department has not made a probable cause discrimination finding against the District and has not found a violation of the Act.
For those that do not speak legalese, I will break down the above into the four individual phrases:
“The parties have mutually agreed to enter into this collaboration Agreement to work together on a nation-wide and state-wide issue.” — This means that Hopkins VOLUNTARILY entered into this agreement to “collaborate” with MDHR on the issue of resolving racial disparities not just in MN, but nationally (which is, needless to say, outside the scope of MDHR’s authority).
“This collaboration Agreement is not an indication or admission of any liability or wrongdoing…” — This means that MDHR was not accusing Hopkins 270 of doing anything wrong, even if MDHR had identified racial disparities in discipline. Correspondingly, Hopkins was not admitting to doing anything wrong.
“The Department has not made a probable cause discrimination finding against the District …” — This means that MDHR did not have reason to believe it could meet the minimum threshold of evidentiary proof required to even allege in court that Hopkins 270 was acting in a discriminatory matter towards any children of color — either through committing intentional acts of discrimination, or in a manner that resulted in a disparate impact (see prior post on MDHR and Data on Racial Disparities).
“… and has not found a violation of the Act” — This is another way of saying that MDHR did not find evidence sufficient to legally allege Hopkins 270 had violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
IN SUMMARY: MDHR looked at all the available evidence and concluded, notwithstanding all the pronouncements of racial disparities in discipline, that there were not legally sufficient facts to allege Hopkins 270 was discriminating against students of color.
Hopkins 270 Blog 
Leave a comment