No, your question is not any clearer, nor is it any clearer how proving a student who was “indirectly harmed” by a violation to sue a school for mental anguish damages is either necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the policy behind this law.
First of all, you’re being disingenuous by deflecting away from your obvious lack of understanding of the meaning of the word disenfranchised.
Secondly, you’re a lawyer.
Why should I be surprised?