Last Thursday, the board of Denver Public Schools voted 5-1 to censure Director John Youngquist, who abstained from the vote. The verdict capped an inquisition Superintendent Alex Marrero had requested, accusing Youngquist of mistreating staff and showing racial bias.

The district’s investigation was flimsy. In a context-light report stacking anonymous and often vague grievances, investigators concluded Youngquist could be “belittling, dismissive and condescending.” But it admitted investigators couldn’t determine he “deliberately acted” with racial bias. Being brusque doesn’t make someone racist.

The report revealed Youngquist asks tough questions, digs into data and pushes district leaders for answers, which “he views to be his mission as a board member.” Yet therein lies the problem: Youngquist is an accountability guy, and DPS leadership hates scrutiny.

Witnesses griped that Youngquist wouldn’t toe the PR line about “positive data,” calling him “unsupportive” when he questioned a 79% graduation rate — even as students graduate without meeting expectations. One complained that “every achievement” is “never enough” for Youngquist.

DPS dad Paul Ballenger nailed it: “Simply put, oversight and transparency are his duties, not misconduct,” he testified. “Punishing someone for unspecified or perceived impact rather than timely and documented wrongdoing risks creating a chilling effect that discourages board members from doing their jobs.”

Bingo. Hold DPS accountable — and they’ll come for you.

No wonder the charges were murky. Board members conceded that. Moments before the vote, Youngquist asked to clarify “what the accusations are that are being noted for censure.” He couldn’t get a straight answer.

“We’re not specifying anything in the motion,” Sochi Gaytán dodged, vaguely citing “violations” in the report and Marrero’s “letter of concern.”

When Kimberlee Sia — the intrepid “no” vote — asked if they needed to identify a “violation of state statute or specific board policy,” Gaytán doubled down: “We’re presenting a generic motion for censure based on the findings of the investigative report.” Which findings?

The exchange boils down to: “What am I being found guilty of?” followed by, “We’re not going to say, but we’re censuring you anyway.”

Sanctions without a specific violation? Inquisition, indeed. But never fear: They definitely weren’t punishing Youngquist.

“Accountability is not punishment,” Michelle Quattlebaum asserted. “This action is not intended as a punishment,” echoed De La Rosa. Olson claimed, “(A)ccountability for impact… doesn’t punish anybody.”

Consequences aren’t punishment? Tell that to your kid next time you take the iPad away.

Scott Esserman — whom voters just booted from the board on Nov. 4 — griped that Youngquist shows a “tremendous amount of entitlement” and might sue “because as a white man, what could he have done wrong?” Youngquist has never invoked his race in his defense.

Esserman lamented the only way the investigation could find Youngquist “explicitly racist” was if he admitted to disliking Black people — which, of course, he didn’t — yet still insisted, “the results of the investigation show that’s exactly what happened.”

Oh, yes, Scott — the investigation proves what the report literally says couldn’t be determined. That’s some A+ circular logic.

Quattlebaum, also voted off the board, warned that denying accountability “reinforce(s) white supremacy culture.” One wonders if she’s delivered the accountability lecture to her campaign manager, disgraced former board member Auon’tai Anderson — who still refuses accountability for the misconduct behind his own censure, including inappropriate advances toward underage students.

The absurdity of this “kangaroo court,” as The Gazette’s editorial termed it, was perfectly captured during public comment by Hashim Coates. He played the “slavery” card.

Coates is a paid political operative who’s run several school board campaigns yet presents as a community activist. In December 2016, he pleaded guilty to prohibited use of a weapon after firing a gun into a car carrying a male prostitute and three others, including children.

Youngquist’s defenders emphasized his decades serving diverse communities, with no racism claims, as proof he’s no racist. Apparently, that’s slaveholder logic. “Who else had that proximity? Those who had Black people in chattel slavery. Proximity does not equate to innocence.”

We’ve seen this movie before. In 2023, Coates accused DPS mom Kristen Fry of assaulting him and using a racial slur at a board meeting — after she simply asked him to “please be respectful of the speakers.” Board members — notably Esserman, Gaytán, Olson and Quattlebaum — publicly condemned Fry on Coates’ word alone, without evidence. She was branded a racist and criminally charged.

But video DPS was forced to release proved the story false. Fry never touched him; no witness heard a slur. Charges were dropped. The board apologized to Coates immediately; they’ve never apologized to Fry.

Now, Youngquist faces similar “racism” accusations from a board that’s twisting the report into something it isn’t. Yet his track record doesn’t match the caricature.

More supporters spoke up than critics during public comment, vouching for Youngquist’s character. Yet censure advocates — including board members — adopted commenter MiDian Shofner’s view that his decades of respected service were irrelevant. Only this “specific moment” mattered.

Nonsense. You can’t just discard an upstanding, decades-long education career — especially when it aligns with the report’s finding that no racial bias was proven. But the board did exactly that, smearing Youngquist’s reputation with a narrative the evidence contradicts.

If this is how DPS treats someone of John Youngquist’s pedigree, imagine what happens to anyone without his résumé — a parent, perhaps, like Kristen Fry.

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.