Editor’s note: This article includes depictions of sexual abuse of minors that may be triggering for some readers. If you are an athlete, coach or administrator and are aware of hazing or abuse in your athletics programs, report the abuse to administration and/or call the Courage First Athlete Helpline at (888) 279-1026.
In recent decades, an increasing number of high schools have allowed coaches to hold preseason football camps to teach fundamentals and build team unity. At the same time, these camps may inadvertently foster an atmosphere conducive to hazing. While certain interactions among teammates are simply meant to make new members feel more a part of the team, some often end up being inappropriate, dangerous and even illegal. Despite decades of nationwide hazing awareness campaigns and antihazing advocacy, many coaches and school administrators may still believe this form of student-on-student interaction represents mere “roughhousing” or “horseplay.” AP and KP et al v. Mead School District, Case: 24-2-03569-32 (2026) serves as a stark reminder not only of the duty coaches and school administrators have to protect students from such conduct, but also of the consequences that can result from shirking this responsibility.
Silence on ‘the sacrifice’
Mead High School in Spokane, Wash., held an overnight summer camp for athletes interested in playing on Mead’s freshman, junior varsity and varsity football teams. Players were supposed to be supervised at the camp by varsity head coach Keith Stamps, and assistant coaches Jared Thomas and Gunner Drew.
During the 2022 camp, KK, a mixed-race student, was openly degraded with racial epithets during on-field activities by some of his white teammates. One night during the camp, a group of masked students dragged KK out of his dorm down two flights of stairs to a different room, passing an adult supervisor. The adult supervisor who saw the incident asked what the boys were doing but failed to intervene.
Once in the room, the students pinned KK down, removed his clothes and pushed a massage gun between his anus and testicles — something the students called “the sacrifice” — as more than 20 teammates watched and recorded video of the assault. KK subsequently left the camp, walking more than a mile to his sister’s home.
Despite knowing that KK was assaulted and was no longer at the camp, none of the coaches tried to find him or contact his parents or the police. None of the players involved in the assault were punished by the coaches, creating a permissive culture of hazing within the football program. The video of the assault was shared among teammates, even among the sons of Mead’s football coaches. As a result of the assault and harassment KK suffered afterward, he transferred out of the Mead School District.
At the 2023 football camp the following year, the harassment escalated, taking on an overtly racist character. White upper-class athletes, emboldened by a culture of impunity, targeted three younger Black players at the camp. One of the Black players, CM, fearing that he was going to be raped by the older white players, told the coaches of the white players' plans. The coaching staff did nothing. Later that day, CM was pinned down and assaulted in the same manner as KK. The incident was once again video recorded by some of the players. Throughout the rest of the camp, the group of older players mocked and humiliated CM.
The next night, the same group of white players, having suffered no consequences from the attack of CM, set their sights on another younger Black student. Before they could find him, however, GP, who is white, warned the student and another Black student that they were going to be targeted, and the players hid. GP then confronted the older students and told them to stop assaulting teammates. Instead of backing off, however, the older students turned their assault on GP, who was a minor at the time. GP was tackled, pinned to the ground and subjected to “the sacrifice.” While being assaulted, approximately 15 other students cheered the older students on and captured video of the assault, just like with KK and CM. The video of the assault was posted on Snapchat and other social media.
Within two weeks of GP’s assault, a parent of one of the players on the team shared the video of the assault with Mead High School athletics director John Barrington. Barrington claimed he forwarded the video to principal Kimberly Jensen and Stamps, the head coach. Jensen, however, disputed this timeline, and claimed to not have seen the video until December.
After seeing the video, Stamps spoke to GP and told both Barrington and GP that the issue would be addressed. However, GP was subject to continued harassment after the assault. GP ultimately transferred out of the district before the 2023-24 school year ended.
By this time, having received both an email from a parent and GP’s verbal report, the coach and athletics director had a mandatory duty by the state and school district to report the incident to parents and higher administrators. In addition, if reported, the white players faced suspension and referral to law enforcement officials. Both Barrington and Stamps, however, ignored their duty and the mandatory reporting law.
After learning that the students involved were “standout players,” Stamps chose to chat informally with some of the athletes. During the chat, he told the players of the potential problem the video could have in college recruitment but did not tell the players to stop harassing GP or hazing other players. In addition, neither Barrington nor Stamps informed CM’s or GP’s parents of the sexual assault on their sons, or the white students’ parents of their sons’ illegal behavior.
In fact, Stamps supposedly did not inform principal Jensen of the video and reports of an attack at the camp until December, after the season had ended. Jensen, however, claimed to not have looked at the video, since Stamps said the incident only involved boys “roughhousing” and “horseplay.”
In January, after another parent complained to Jensen about “multiyear” hazing that had occurred within the football program under Stamps, the school district was finally notified and told Stamps that it would conduct a formal review. However, the school district still failed to inform parents or law enforcement of the assaults. The district finally notified GP’s parents of the incident involving their son and the videos circulating around the school in February, eight months after the fact.
‘Foreseeable harm’
In response, GP’s parents filed a negligence lawsuit against the Mead School District and 10 students, alleging that the students hazed and physically assaulted their son and racially harassed others, and that the school district failed to protect the students from hazing, sexual assault, and racial and gender-based discrimination.
In support of their claim, GP’s parents argued that the school district had a duty to protect GP and other students from foreseeable harm, even from third parties or criminal acts. Therefore, they were negligent in providing adequate safety during the football camp, did not prevent harassment and hazing, did not adequately train personnel how to supervise the students under their care, engaged in institutional indifference, and failed to report the assaults to proper authorities in violation of school policy and state law.
In particular, the lawsuit stated that the Mead School District and its employees had a duty to report any incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault to school administrators and police, and that the coach, athletics director and principal knowingly decided against doing so even after being made aware of the allegations and in opposition to state law and school policy.
Moreover, the lawsuit argued that under state law, the school district had a duty to not discriminate based on “race, color, caste or sex.” Even though the school district had notice of sexual harassment, the school district and its employees did nothing to protect GP. In fact, the school district and its employees acted with intentional indifference to the sexual harassment of GP.
A trial jury deliberated for less than 2½ hours before reaching a unanimous verdict, awarding $17 million in damages — $8 million to CM, $7 million to GP and $500,000 to each of the victims’ four parents. The Washington court found that the Mead School District failed to protect the students from “foreseeable harm” resulting from hazing, sexual assault and gender-based discrimination involving the Mead High School football program. The court also ruled that the district was liable for racial discrimination and that the Mead School District failed to follow mandatory reporting laws.
Prevent and punish
While a $17 million award should get the attention of schools and athletics administrators everywhere, what are the lessons to be learned from AP and KP et al v. Mead School District, Case: 24-2-03569-32?
First, coaches cannot turn a blind eye to hazing, harassment and other criminal behavior, regardless of whether it involves “standout players” on the team. This is especially true today with cell phones and social media, because when something happens — whether at camp or on campus — it is not going to stay hidden for long. Therefore, coaches need to be proactive and get out in front of any alleged hazing incidents, even if it costs them their best players.
Second, the argument that the boys were just engaged in “roughhousing” and “horseplay” is not going to shield school officials and coaches from liability under school policies and state reporting laws. Therefore, it is essential that school administrators and coaches understand state and federal liability potential. As preseason camps become more common, it is essential that coaches prevent all types of hazing and that they take immediate action to prevent incidents and punish perpetrators. With more state legislatures enacting laws prohibiting all forms of hazing, the court’s $17 million award in this case should send a clear message that courts are taking hazing seriously, and school employees should, too. Ω
