Education Matters: Final findings of San Dieguito human swastika incident

The San Dieguito Union High School District fulfilled my Public Records Act request for the final investigation results of the “human swastika” incident that happened last May at a district high school and found that three of the four allegations against the district had merit.

Yet the family of the targeted student and the organization that filed the complaint on the family’s behalf remain unsatisfied.

The incident occurred when eight San Dieguito Academy students formed the shape of a swastika on the school’s athletic field. The display was timed for an SDA Jewish student to see as he was taking a flying lesson over the field.

The SDA principal and assistant principal, Cara Dolnik and Charles Adams, did not report the incident to the district superintendent, Anne Staffieri. Instead, PeerK12, a civil rights nonprofit organization, reported it immediately after learning of it in late August last year.

As a result of the SDA administrators’ failure to report the incident when it occurred, the district accepted a resignation letter from Dolnik and reassigned Adams to the district office for unspecified duties. Unconfirmed reports suggest the eight students may have been suspended.

On Sept. 11, 2025, PeerK12 filed a complaint with the district through the Uniform Complaint Procedures process which alleges violations of state laws or regulations.

Specifically, the complaint was filed on behalf of the student and family for “the failure of the district … to respond to, report, and remedy a targeted antisemitic hate incident that occurred on May 30, 2025” on the SDA campus.

The complaint alleges discriminatory religious harassment, timed as it was to be viewed by a fellow Jewish student.

The district’s internal investigation was coordinated by Evelin Medina, SDUHSD’s director of community resolution and compliance, and Tracy Olander, SDUHSD’s director of human resources.

Although some of the findings have been redacted to protect the identity of the student, the district substantiated Allegation 1 – that “a group of [redacted] deliberately formed a human swastika on school grounds timed to coincide with a planned [redacted].”

According to the findings, “The preponderance of the evidence established that a majority of the [redacted] involved knew they were forming a swastika” and that “one [redacted] was primarily responsible for coming up with and organizing the shape …”

The evidence, according to the district, supports that “many of the [redacted] involved were peer-pressured to participate, and at least [redacted] sat up at one point during the [redacted] when they realized what shape they were forming.”

Second allegations

Allegation 2 was divided into three parts, with 2a entirely redacted except to note that the finding was not substantiated. According to PeerK12, 2a alleged that the incident was a hate crime, but the district did not find evidence to support the charge.

Allegation 2b – that the school’s administration did not promptly investigate or discipline those involved – was substantiated.

It was found that the delayed response of the school’s administration to investigate the May incident was “a failing of their professional responsibilities” and that the response to the incident “was substandard and fell below the professional expectations for administrators of their experience and training.”

However, the 2b findings did note that the evidence was “insufficient to establish that the delay was due to discriminatory reasons,” citing the timing of the incident which took place on the last day of the 2024-2025 school year and the start of the summer recess.

Allegation 2c – that administrators did not implement measures to protect [redacted] from further harm or retaliation following the May incident – was substantiated.

However, the findings state that “appropriate supportive measures were put in place” following the family’s meeting with district officials on Aug. 28.

Corrective actions

According to the final findings, corrective actions are being taken, one being that the district “publicly acknowledged the incident, recognizing the failure in response and protocols, and committed to addressing the situation moving forward.”

In addition, appropriate personnel action was taken to address the school administrators’ response to the incident.

The district states that it is working “to develop community restoration activities and public acknowledgement of the harm the May incident has caused” … by engaging in “ongoing professional development and education to provide a greater understanding to district students, staff and community.”

The district is working with a number of organizations – including the National Conflict Resolution Center and the local branch of the American Jewish Committee – to train staff and implement stronger standards.

The district also plans parent engagement nights, “staff listening circles,” and ongoing lessons for “students on the topic of antisemitism, hate language and symbols.”

Reaction

PeerK12 co-founders Nicole Bernstein and Tamar Caspi responded to the findings in a statement, writing, “The district’s response is riddled with contradictions that defy logic. It publicly labels the conduct a hate crime, then denies that finding in its own report. It claims the investigation was impartial, yet assigns it to its own attorney. Administrators are removed or reassigned, then the district insists no policy was violated.”

That the district needs to bring in outside consultants to explain to students and staff that swastikas are hate symbols, Bernstein and Caspi said, “If that lesson still needs to be taught, it raises serious questions about the district’s judgment and culture – and helps explain why these incidents keep escalating instead of stopping.”

The complaint was based on SDUHSD board policies 5131.2 addressing bullying, 5145.3 addressing discrimination and harassment, and 5145.9 which states in part, “The Governing Board is committed to providing a respectful, inclusive, and safe learning environment that protects students from discrimination, harassment, intimidation, bullying, or any other type of behavior that is motivated by hate.”

Hate-motivated behavior, as defined by the district’s board policy, “is any behavior intended to cause emotional suffering, physical injury, or property damage through intimidation, harassment, bigoted slurs or epithets …”

The complaint also cited violations of four California state education codes:— 201 (All pupils have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment) – 220 (prohibits discrimination in educational programs receiving state funds based on protected characteristics) – 234 (mandates that local school agencies prevent and address discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying …) – 234.1 (prohibits discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on the actual or perceived characteristics …). 

Ed Code 234.1 also specifically states that there is a requirement that “if school personnel witness an act of discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying, they shall take immediate steps to intervene when safe to do so.”

Family statement

Peer K12 provided the following statement from the Gordon family whose son was targeted: 

“We lost trust in the district when it chose to investigate itself through its own attorney. That decision made clear to us that minimizing liability mattered more than accountability for an antisemitic act and examining how school leadership handled – and then mishandled – what occurred. It has felt less like a genuine effort to understand what went wrong and more like an attempt to explain it away. 

As a result, the findings were not surprising … and reflect a process that has felt dismissive of the harm done and insulting from start to finish. 

Because the district’s so-called corrective actions amounted to recycling the same failed responses it previously claimed were working,” the family said “there’s no reason to expect change. The worst part," according to the Gordons, "is that the district consulted outside organizations who excluded our family, our child, and PeerK12 who has advocated for us throughout this entire ordeal. That eight students formed a human swastika targeting a Jewish student and the school administration failed to protect that child … raises serious concerns about leadership, training, and culture,” stated the Gordon family.

The appeal

PeerK12 appealed the district’s findings on Nov. 19 and received confirmation of receipt from the state on Dec. 5. The California Department of Education issued a decision of the appeal on Jan. 5, the subject of which is titled “discrimination based on religion” and found that “the appeal has merit in part.”

The conclusion states that “the school failed to adequately respond to peer-to-peer discrimination based on religion once it became aware of it.”

The CDE determined that additional and more specific corrective actions are required by the district for “a proper remedy.” Because the family is considering options for next steps, this is not over and word is the district “is not off the hook.”

Marsha Sutton is an education writer and investigative opinion columnist and can be reached at suttonmarsha@gmail.com.