$200 million is a failure, not a restitution.
The recent news that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has crossed the $200 million threshold in payouts related to Mark Berndt's decades of abuse at Miramonte Elementary is being framed by the media as a "record-setting settlement." It’s treated like a grim but necessary accounting—a massive check written to balance the scales of justice. Meanwhile, you can read related developments here: The DHS Shutdown Finally Ended and It Was a Mess.
That is a lie.
Writing checks with public money is the easiest thing a bloated bureaucracy can do. It’s the ultimate "get out of jail free" card for administrators who presided over a culture of silence. We are watching a masterclass in institutional money laundering: converting moral bankruptcy into literal bankruptcy, all while the people who actually enabled the predator walk away with their pensions intact. To understand the bigger picture, check out the recent article by TIME.
The Myth of the "Unforeseeable" Monster
The competitor narrative suggests Berndt was a singular anomaly, a monster who slipped through the cracks. I’ve seen this script play out in corporate boardrooms and government halls for twenty years. It’s the "Lone Wolf" defense.
It’s garbage.
In 1993, a student reported Berndt for fondling. LAUSD filed a report, the DA declined to charge, and the district—rather than exercising its own discretion to protect children—simply put him back in the classroom. They didn't just "miss" him; they actively re-installed him.
When a district pays $200 million, they aren't paying for the crimes of one man. They are paying the "negligence tax" for a system that prioritized union-protected job security over the physical safety of seven-year-olds. They even paid Berndt $40,000 just to go away in 2012. Think about that: the district paid the predator to leave before they ever paid the victims to heal.
The $200 Million Distraction
We talk about the dollar amount because it's a big, scary number. It makes for a great headline. But focusing on the payout is exactly what the district wants you to do.
Why? Because money is fungible.
LAUSD is currently suing its own insurers because they won't cover these defense costs. If the district wins that suit, the "payout" doesn't even come from the education budget; it comes from an insurance pool. If they lose, the money is drained from classrooms, special education, and mental health services for current students.
Either way, the institution survives. The structure remains. The bureaucrats who ignored the 1993 reports aren't the ones writing the checks. You are. The taxpayers are. And the students of 2026 are paying for it through larger class sizes and gutted extracurriculars.
The False Choice: Consent vs. Liability
If you want to see the true soul of LAUSD, look at their legal strategies. In separate but related abuse cases, district lawyers have actually argued that a 14-year-old was "mature enough to consent" to sex with a teacher to mitigate civil liability.
This isn't an organization seeking "justice." This is a litigation machine designed to minimize loss. When they settle for $200 million, it’s not because they’ve found their conscience; it’s because their actuarial tables told them a jury would hit them for $500 million.
The Real Price of "Settling"
We need to stop using the word "settlement" as if it implies a resolution.
- Information Blackouts: Most of these payouts come with non-disclosure agreements or sealed records. We trade cash for silence, ensuring that the specific names of the administrators who ignored complaints stay buried.
- Moral Hazard: If the penalty for gross negligence is just "more public money," there is zero incentive for systemic change. In a private company, a $200 million hit usually results in a C-suite purge. In LAUSD, it results in a press release about "moving forward."
- The Victimization of the Future: Every dollar sent to a law firm or a settlement fund is a dollar taken from the 2026-2027 school year. We are effectively punishing today’s children for the crimes of 1990s administrators.
Stop Asking the Wrong Question
The media asks: "Is $200 million enough for the victims?"
The real question is: "Why does the institution that permitted the abuse still have the authority to manage its own 'reform'?"
Imagine a scenario where a private daycare allowed a predator to operate for 30 years despite multiple reports. That daycare would be razed to the ground. Its leadership would be barred from the industry. Yet, because LAUSD is "too big to fail," we just watch the numbers tick up.
$200 million isn't a milestone. It’s a ransom. We are paying the district to pretend they’ve fixed a problem that is baked into their very DNA.
If you want to fix this, stop cheering for the settlement. Start demanding the names of the people who signed the "return to classroom" orders in the 80s and 90s. Until individuals, not just "districts," face the consequences, the $200 million is just the cost of doing business.
