Former JeffCo high school staff member faces sex assault, drug charges
DENVER (KDVR) — A former high school staff member in Jefferson County was arrested after a Safe2Tell report accused a staff member of sexually assaulting a student.
On Tuesday night, the Lakewood Police Department took James Michael Chevrier, 38, into custody. Chevrier was formerly employed at Green Mountain High School, Bear Creek High School and other schools in the area in recent years.
Douglas County teacher arrested on charges of child sex assault
Chevrier is being held in Jefferson County Jail on suspicion of:
Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust – victim less than 15 and as part of a pattern of abuse
Soliciting for child prostitution
Possession with intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance – Schedule I or II
Two charges of possession with intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance – Schedule I III / IV More Than 4g, and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor in the Second Degree
Chevrier's arrest comes after Jefferson County Public Schools said it received a Safe2Tell report, where students can anonymously report threats, accusing a Green Mountain High School psychologist of sexually assaulting a female student.
Chevrier was put on administrative leave, and the police were contacted. The department said it launched an investigation after it was made aware of the accusation on May 9. After speaking with potential victims and witnesses, police arrested Chevrier, and the district said Chevrier was terminated on Monday.
Chevrier was a staff member for four to five days a week at Green Mountain High School from 2023-2025 and a staff member one day a week at Bear Creek High School from 2024-2025. He also worked at Evergreen High School from 2022-2023 and at Cherry Creek School District from 2021-2022.
Detectives believe there may be more individuals with information, and anyone with information or people who feel they have been victimized should call the Lakewood Police Tip Line at 303-763-6800.
Superintendent for the Jefferson County Public Schools Tracy Dorland and principals at Bear Creek, Green Mountain and Evergreen released messages to the high school communities stating that Chevrier was immediately put on administrative leave after the report on May 9.
'We take any and all allegations of criminal or inappropriate behavior extremely seriously. Protecting the safety and well-being of Jeffco students is our highest priority. Jeffco's Title IX team is working closely with Lakewood PD to extend all available support and resources within the district to victims and their families,' the community messages said.
Program helping Colorado students stay safe in school, report shows
The district said members of Jeffco's crisis response team will be at Bear Creek, Green Mountain and Evergreen throughout the week, and the district encourages parents to speak with their children about boundaries and making sure they understand adults should never ask them to keep a secret.
Several meetings are being held at local schools with the Lakewood Police Department.
Monday, May 19, from 4-5:30 p.m. in the Green Mountain High School cafeteria
Tuesday, May 20, from 4-5:30 p.m. in the Bear Creek High School cafeteria
Wednesday, May 21, from 4-5:30 p.m. in the Evergreen High School cafeteria
The schools will also follow up after the family meeting for those who can't make it.
'As parents and educators, we take very seriously the privilege and responsibility to provide a safe and welcoming learning environment for our staff, students and families. We will continue to work in partnership with Lakewood PD to share information about the alleged crimes to ensure justice for Jeffco students,' the community messages said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
5 days ago
- Fox News
Virginia school district accused of religious discrimination in transgender locker room case
A northern Virginia school district dropped its Title IX sexual harassment investigation into a Muslim student who allegedly complained about sharing a locker room with a biological female who identifies as transgender, while adding additional Title IX violations against two Christian students involved in the same incident, their lawyer says. The three high school students, who are sophomores at Stone Bridge High School in Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS), were placed under a Title IX investigation for "sexual harassment" after "expressing confusion and discomfort" over a transgender male student being in the boys' locker room during PE class in March, according to their attorney, Founding Freedoms Law Center legal counsel Josh Hetzler. Under LCPS policy, students are allowed to use the locker room and restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. Hetzler says the district's Title IX office notified his Muslim client that the sexual harassment allegation against him had been dismissed. However, the district refused to drop the sexual harassment allegation against his other two clients, who are Christian, and slapped them with an additional charge of "sex-based discrimination." In its dismissal letter, LCPS said that the Muslim student's alleged conduct, even if proved to be true, "would not constitute sexual harassment" as defined in its Title IX regulations. Hetzler's other two clients received a letter from LCPS on the same day informing them they were still under investigation for sexual harassment and, now, sex-based discrimination, under Title IX. While Hetzler is grateful for the dismissed probe against one of his clients, he argued all three students' cases should be dismissed. "If your reason for dismissing it against our Muslim client is that — even if proven, even if true — this would not be a Title IX violation, then it must also be true that it's not a Title IX violation for our other clients," he told Fox News Digital. "So it's just really baffling that they would do this." He accused LCPS of "clear religious discrimination" and suspects the district is backing off the probe into his Muslim client for political reasons, as the Muslim community is a "key constituency" in Loudoun County. "We find this to be outrageous, and we're pushing back," he added. If found guilty, the students could face suspension or expulsion and would have the violation on their record, Hetzler says. "Often times the process is the punishment," he added. "They shouldn't be investigated." In audio of the taped locker room incident obtained by Fox News Digital, male students can be heard asking, "Why is there a girl? I'm so uncomfortable there is a girl. A female, bro, get out of here." LCPS told Fox News Digital it was restricted legally from being able to share specifics about Title IX investigations. A spokesperson said the district was "committed to providing a safe and inclusive educational environment for all students, employees, and community members" and that its Title IX process "follows applicable federal law." The district previously pushed back on the allegations it was investigating students based on their viewpoints. "To be absolutely clear: Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) would not investigate or discipline students based on their personal opinions, thoughts, or beliefs, provided those expressions do not violate policies prohibiting hate speech, discriminatory language, threats, or other forms of harmful or disruptive conduct," LCPS said in a statement to Fox News Digital in May. "However, LCPS does investigate and may take disciplinary action when student behavior violates LCPS' Student Rights & Responsibilities Handbook for Families and Student Code of Conduct." The district's gender policy was recently challenged by Virginia's Republican Attorney General, Jason Mirayes, and is now being investigated by the Justice Department. The district was already under a Title IX investigation by the U.S. Department of Education over its gender identity policies. The Biden administration updated Title IX regulations in 2021 and 2022 to expand protections for LGBTQ+ students, interpreting the law's prohibition on sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Under then-President Joe Biden's interpretation, transgender students were allowed in women's sports, bathrooms, changing room facilities and in other educational programs. Soon after taking office, Trump's Department of Education notified K-12 schools that it would be reversing Biden's re-write of Title IX and enforce these protections on the basis of biological sex in schools and on campuses. Fox News' Jamie Joseph contributed to this article.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
Hingham family files Title IX complaint after student creates deepfake image of their daughter
Megan Mancini filed a Title IX complaint in Hingham Public Schools after she says her daughter was a victim of sexual harassment. Mancini says another student created a Deepfake pornographic image of her daughter using artificial intelligence. 'She was devastated, I mean she definitely felt violated, she wanted something to be done about it, and at that point we had notified the school, the police,' said Mancini. After Mancini filed a complaint about the incident in January, Hingham schools launched an investigation. After about four and a half months, the district sent a letter to Mancini, saying that while the student's conduct was 'inappropriate and hurtful, there is insufficient evidence to conclude it occurred in the District's schools.' 'The image was shared in the school hallways, amongst other students during school hours, and it was also shared via text,' said Mancini. Mancini was disappointed to learn the student responsible for creating that nude photo of her daughter would not be disciplined at Hingham Middle School. 'It makes me feel like the school failed,' said Mancini. Legal expert Peter Elikann says families could press charges for this under the state's new Revenge Porn and Sexting law. 'The word needs to go out among young people that you can be criminally prosecuted in juvenile court for sending nude images of someone else without their consent,' said Elikann. He says that includes Deepfakes or AI-generated photos. 'The fact that people can create all kinds of fake pornography online, and young people seem to know how to do it, it's really hit a huge crisis point,' said Elikann. 'I think it's important to have swift action, and I think we missed that critical window,' said Mancini. Mancini hopes school leaders can start to take more action on these cases to prevent them from happening again, even if districts claim not to have jurisdiction. 'There was not one communication sent out from the school department or the school administration about this issue, and for you know, a heads up, awareness to parents that this is going on, this is going on in middle school, and it's going to get nothing but worse,' said Mancini. This conduct is becoming such a problem that the state has a youth diversion program to teach minors about the dangers of sharing nude photos, if they're prosecuted in cases like this. Boston 25 News reached out to Hingham Public Schools multiple times on this issue, but they haven't responded. This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Yahoo
Federal Prosecutors Are Starting To Sound Like Campus Activists About Sex and Consent
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is now embracing ideas about coercion and consent that rose to prominence on college campuses during the Barack Obama administration. That's the implication of the OneTaste case, in which a jury has returned a guilty verdict against Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone, who stood accused of a conspiracy to commit forced labor during their time with the sexual and spiritual self-help organization. I have written many words about this case already, and I'm going to try to refrain from rehashing all of the details in today's newsletter. (If you're new to the case and want to dive deep, here you go. If you want a couple of overviews of how the trial played out, see here and here.) What I want to focus on right now is the larger implications of this case. They're not pretty. If these ideas about coercion and consent didn't start on the college campuses of the 2010s, that's at least when they became fully institutionalized —adopted as not just the framework favored by activist students and women's studies professors but by college administrators and the Title IX offices they were beholden to. There was affirmative consent, sure, but also a broader suspicion of consent as a worthwhile standard, or at least a willingness to dismiss it for more arcane ideas about sexual permissibility. Suddenly it wasn't enough to say no and it wasn't even enough to say yes—one had to consider a complex set of power dynamics, alcohol consumption levels, subtle nonverbal cues, and so on, to determine if consent counted. It stopped just short of taking astrological signs into account. We went from a reasonable corrective (acknowledging that sexual assault needn't necessarily involve force or violence) to women getting support for claims of sexual coercion and violation even when they seemed to willingly go along with sexual activity at the time but later said that they weren't enthusiastic enough about it and a partner should have known that and stopped. Basically, it was only consensual if a woman felt deep down in her heart, during and after, that everything had been OK. We saw this idea migrate from campus newspapers and Title IX offices to the broader world during the #MeToo movement. It's perhaps best exemplified by a story about the actor Aziz Ansari. A young woman went to dinner with him, then back to his house, and later excoriated him in Babe magazine for not reading her cues about not wanting to fool around and allegedly pressuring her to do so. The piece called it sexual misconduct and a violation. But when the woman explicitly told Ansari no, he stopped, per her account of things. And when she wanted to go, she left. The Babe article provoked a huge debate about whether this sort of thing—which in another era we might have just called a bad date or caddish behavior—was a form of sexual assault and where responsibility lies here. Are sexual partners supposed to be mind readers? Do women have any responsibility for explicitly making their wishes known? Obviously, not all or even most campus sexual misconduct or #MeToo stories were like the Aziz Ansari story. But there were enough that it was clearly not an isolated idea or belief system. It was a new paradigm—and one sold, perversely, as empowering to women. That was a lie. Broadening the parameters of nonconsensual sex like this does women a disservice, portraying us as somehow having less agency and less moral culpability than male peers (which could have consequences far beyond the bedroom) while also telling women that it's normal—desirable even—to just shut up and go along with unwanted or uncomfortable activity in the moment and then object afterward. Rather than encourage women to be bold and unflinching in expressing what they want and don't want, it encourages putting out with a promise that later they can get their vengeance in public opinion or in court. We're uncomfortable as a culture with "assigning women complete sexual responsibility, even though we want them to have complete sexual liberty," said Kat Rosenfield on a recent episode of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Rosenfield and her co-host were talking about the murky way we sometimes talk about women's actions when allegations of sexual misconduct are concerned. People can do a lot of "squirming around to try and make a choice that was made [into] not actually a choice," said Rosenfield. And once you're in that mode, you end up with some real mental shenanigans around consent. The OneTaste trial shows that these ideas have now crossed over from college values or cultural vibes to legal standards adopted by federal prosecutors with the power to help put people in prison. In the OneTaste trial, prosecutors elicited testimony after testimony from "victims" who admit they consented to various sexual activities, from orgasmic meditation (a core activity in OneTaste courses and communes) to random hook-ups to relationships with OneTaste community members, investors, and students. They not only did not say no, they affirmatively agreed to these encounters or even initiated them. The repercussions they now claimed to have feared if they didn't do these things—many of which were core parts of the intentional communities and/or classes they chose to partake in, applied for, paid for—were things like social disapproval or missing out on opportunities to move up in the OneTaste ranks. Some were not even employees when the activities in question took place, and even among those who were, much of the action they talked about took place in contexts outside their employment. Prosecutors argued that Daedone's ideas (like daily orgasmic meditation being good for you, orgasm as a way to clear out bad energy, and the importance of being open to sexual encounters that might be out of your comfort zone) and Cherwitz's encouragement or shunning amounted to a form of coercion that rendered these women's seeming consent invalid. We're supposed to ignore the fact that these women admittedly never told Daedone or Cherwitz, let alone their sexual partners, that they were uncomfortable or didn't want to do these things. We're supposed to ignore the fact that contemporaneous accounts of these acts—emails, texts, journal entries, social media posts—often showed sunny feelings about what was going on. And we're supposed to ignore the fact that these women didn't report any crimes or labor violations at the time and are only testifying after being approached by FBI agents a decade or two later. The defendants are being held accountable for how these women feel—or at least told FBI agents who were making promises and extolling their victimhood that they feel—about 10- and 15-year-old sexual activity that everyone seems to have been perfectly fine with at the time. We're looking at campus kangaroo courts come to a federal courthouse, with U.S. attorneys fully embracing ideas about consent that were weird and radical just a decade or two ago. I'm sure this will be cheered by some people. I find the prospect offensive and dangerous. It's a total affront to due process, giving people little notice about how to avoid liability (since consent in the moment clearly doesn't matter). And unlike on college campuses, the arbiters of these disputes now have the power to help put people in prison for long stretches. It creates a dangerous situation not only for people who engaged in sex acts with someone claiming, decades later, that their consent was invalid but also for anyone who might be said to have "conspired" to have encouraged these sexual encounters or to have "participated in a venture" that received any benefit from them. It opens the gate to forced labor or sex trafficking prosecutions based on sexual regret. It's also one more step in the total infantilization of women, negating the gains in sexual and social autonomy that we've won. This situation where we expect all the rights of adulthood but none of the responsibility can't last. We're going to start seeing—we are seeing—rights chipped away at, too. At a time when many are keen to use sexual "harms" to justify everything from online censorship to limiting LGBTQ expression, curtailing reproductive rights, and encouraging women to give up on college and just have babies, no feminist, friend of women, or woman who cares about her own bodily autonomy and ability to consent should be cheering this safe space–ification of the DOJ. • The slippery slope of age-verification laws for adult content is on full display in France, where the "government is considering designating X as a porn platform — a move that will likely have the platform implementing strict age verification requirements," per Politico. It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in the U.S., rendering laws aimed at carding people who visit porn websites as a backdoor to either require age verification for social media, too, or make social media websites ban sexually oriented content and accounts of any kind. • President Donald Trump is expected to once again extend the deadline for TikTok parent company ByteDance to sell the company or be banned. "Remember when TikTok was supposedly an urgent national security threat that required emergency legislation? Funny how that 'emergency' keeps getting 75-day extensions," Techdirt Editor Mike Masnick writes. That "should tell you everything about how 'urgent' this national security threat actually was." • "It would help immensely if the critiques of porn, did not confuse 'sex' with 'porn.' The push to be 'sexy' and sexism are not rooted in one form of media," comments Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition, in response to a New Yorker review of the new book Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves. "But linking both evangelicals and anti-SW feminists is the idea that sexist evil can be traced to one tantalizing source. To do that, in these sexual monotheories, porn has to be a monolith. That it presents women one way (submissive) and with one look (skinny, with big tits). Antiporn texts depend on a charicature [sic] of porn, a flattening of sexual speech, in order to establish a clear directional effect on culture." As to the idea that focusing on consent in porn is somehow insufficient, Stabile posts: says: "We focus on 'consent'…because it's how we restrain the urge to police other people's fantasies and sexualities. Because saying 'your articulation of sexuality' is damaging to ME, is the same impulse that underlies anti-LGBTQ censorship." The post Federal Prosecutors Are Starting To Sound Like Campus Activists About Sex and Consent appeared first on
