Behind closed doors: Leaked memos reveal how Durango 9-R Schools avoided a DEI lawsuit—until now

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

Durango School District 9-R changed its hiring policy this spring without a public announcement—but the move didn’t go unnoticed.

According to a new federal civil rights complaint filed by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) and authored by its general counsel, William Trachman, the district had for years pushed a race-conscious hiring agenda, encouraged by internal equity committees and shielded by carefully worded legal guidance. 

Now, MSLF says those practices violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—and that scrubbing the language in 2025 wasn’t enough to undo the damage.

This filing is one of three separate federal complaints MSLF has submitted since late June. The others challenge a district policy that endorses race-based flags and symbols while disallowing others, and a separate complaint targets programs like a Native-only graduation ceremony and parent committee. 

All three complaints are now under consideration by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

A committee by race, for race

The district’s race-conscious push began in earnest with the formation of a permanent Racial Equity Committee. According to an internal planning document, the committee was explicitly designed to include a majority and leadership by people of color. 

The same document directed the group to advise the school board on equity in hiring, organizational culture, curriculum and discipline.

MSLF argues this structure represents a racial quota and notes that the committee’s mission went far beyond culture-building. It was created to influence districtwide operations, including personnel decisions.

Internal planning document states equity committee leadership and majority must be people of color 

The hiring mandate that got rewritten

In 2021, the board directed the superintendent to “actively recruit employees who reflect the diversity of the student population.” Legal counsel Darryl Farrington later advised adding “more closely” to the wording to limit liability.

In a forwarded internal email, Farrington advised that including the words “more closely” before “reflect” might help blunt any assertion that the board was trying to establish a racially proportionate workforce. He acknowledged the district’s intent was to engage in racially sensitive recruitment practices to address what it called a historical lack of diversity.

MSLF sees this as an attempt to mask an illegal practice behind safer wording.

Legal counsel advised softening equity hiring language to avoid lawsuits

Metrics as proof of intent

A later public performance review of the superintendent appeared to tie job success directly to racial hiring metrics. The district noted that Hispanic or Latino new hires had increased by 243 percent compared to the previous EEOC reporting cycle. American Indian or Alaska Native hires rose 50 percent during that time.

The district also reported hiring six individuals who identified as two or more races—up from zero the prior year. And for the first time in years, the district hired four Black or African American employees.

Superintendent report highlights 243% increase in Hispanic or Latino hires and 50% increase in American Indian or Alaska Native hires. “Two or more races” category went from zero to six new hires in one year.

MSLF’s complaint asserts these numbers weren’t shared as neutral data—they were performance indicators. 

Trachman wrote that the natural inference is the superintendent was bragging to show compliance with the board’s implicit demand for racial preferences in hiring.

The disappearing clause

In April 2025, after President Trump issued Executive Order 14151 banning federal DEI preferencing, the district revised OE-4 again. 

The updated version stripped out all references to diversity. 

The new policy simply stated that the superintendent should “actively recruit employees.”

MSLF characterizes the change as a smokescreen.

After Trump’s DEI order, OE-4 was stripped of all race-related language

Trachman’s memo argues that even if the diversity mandate is no longer explicit, the practice continues. 

He cites Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, writing that “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”

Investigation pending

As of the filing, OCR had not announced whether it would open an investigation into any of the three complaints. MSLF stated it was open to early resolution if the district voluntarily came into compliance.

“The logical inference from the documents… is that Durango School District also uses race as a factor in hiring, offering preferences to non-White teachers and other potential employees,” the complaint memo concludes.

What remains to be seen is whether a late-stage policy rewrite can shield Durango from accountability—or whether federal investigators will decide that the pattern of racial favoritism was too deliberate, and too deeply embedded, to ignore.