How have Stamford school officials and districts responded to Owens’s voicemail allegations?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Stamford school officials responded to Candace Owens’s 2007 voicemail allegations with a police investigation, forensic analysis of the tapes, and later a federal lawsuit settlement: the Stamford Board of Education paid $37,500 to Owens’s family and incurred about $25,000 in legal costs, according to contemporaneous reporting and later summaries [1][2]. Local leaders and the superintendent publicly characterized the messages as “horrendous” while police enlisted outside specialists to analyze the recordings [3][4].
1. Police involvement and forensic work — the district pushed the case to law enforcement
Stamford police handled the voicemail threats as a criminal matter, sending the tapes for forensic analysis and enlisting outside specialists to filter background noise and help identify voices; police said they expected more arrests pending the forensic results, indicating the district treated the incident as a matter for criminal investigation rather than only internal discipline [4][5].
2. School leadership’s public framing — “horrendous” and high-profile attention
Joshua Starr, then the city’s superintendent, listened to the voicemails and described them as “horrendous,” framing the school’s public posture as one of condemnation; that language appears in later profiles and summaries of the episode and signals the administration’s public acknowledgment that the messages were serious [3].
3. Lawsuit and settlement — Title IX claim, payout, and legal costs
Owens’s family filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Stamford Board of Education of failing to protect her and violating Title IX by not stopping repeated harassment. The Board agreed to settle for $37,500; Stamford also spent roughly $25,000 on legal representation, per reporting that made the settlement amount public after a Freedom of Information request [1][2].
4. District discipline and procedural criticism — parents alleged inaction
The Owens lawsuit alleged the school “continued to do nothing to protect” her and that, despite the family informing school officials of threats and the identity of callers, the district “took no disciplinary action whatsoever” against the identified students, an accusation cited in local coverage and in the suit’s description [1]. That complaint was central to the family’s federal claim and the eventual settlement [2].
5. Political sensitivity and community fallout — names and relationships amplified scrutiny
Local reporting noted heightened attention because one of the youths tied to the case was the son of then-Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy; the lawsuit suggested the district’s response was influenced by that connection, and the involvement of high-profile local figures intensified scrutiny of school officials’ handling [1][6].
6. How the matter was reported later — memory, profiles, and Owens’s narrative
In subsequent profiles of Owens, outlets repeatedly recount the voicemails, the settlement, and Owens’s own public description of the incident — including a 2016 open letter and later interviews — so the district response is preserved in the public record largely through Owens’s narrative, contemporaneous reporting, and legal filings rather than through exhaustive internal school-board documentation made public at the time [7][8][6].
7. What available sources do not mention — gaps about disciplinary specifics and internal district policies
Available sources do not mention detailed internal disciplinary records showing exactly which students — if any — were disciplined by the district, nor a comprehensive timeline of every administrative step taken by school officials beyond sending the matter to police and later defending against the federal suit [1][4][2].
8. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas — victim’s account vs. institutional defense
Reporting and the lawsuit present two competing narratives: Owens and her family say the district failed to protect her, a claim that led to a settlement [2]; the district’s public statements emphasized the criminal investigation and its condemnation of the messages, and school spokespeople noted legal expenses and eventual resolution — but critics raised the possibility that political connections complicated or delayed discipline, an implicit claim drawn from reporting that one suspect was the mayor’s son [1][5].
9. Takeaway — a criminal investigation, a civil settlement, and lingering questions
The district’s response combined law-enforcement action and legal defense, ending in a modest civil settlement that acknowledged the family’s claim without a public admission of liability; forensic efforts and public statements signaled seriousness, but coverage and the suit itself leave unresolved questions about specific internal disciplinary choices and whether political relationships affected the school’s actions [4][1][2].