If the principal had relied on grammar and spelling errors when she censored the 4th grader’s essay she might not have ended up in federal court. The teacher assigned students to write an “essay to society” on any topic of their choosing. The essays would be compiled into a book and sent home to the parents. Here is the essay that sparked the lawsuit, as set out verbatim in the 4th Circuit’s opinion:
To society,
I don’t know if you know this but peoples view of Tran’s genders is an issue. People think that men should not drees like a women, and saying mean things. They think that they are choosing the wrong things in life. In the world people can choose who they want to be not being told that THEIR diction is wrong. I hope people understand that people can hurt themselves from others hurting their feelings. People need to think before they speak because one word can hurt someone’s feelings. We need to fix this because this is getting out of hand!
Rather than taking the safe, diplomatic option, the principal rejected the essay because of its content. The principal deemed the essay on this culture war issue to be not age-appropriate. The parents sued the principal in her individual capacity, claiming that she infringed on the little girl’s right to free speech.
The court ruled for the principal, dismissing the case. First, the court held that the essay amounted to “school-sponsored speech.” Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the court noted that “school-sponsored speech” could be censored by school officials as long as the reason for the censorship is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” This is why school officials retain a good deal of control over yearbooks, school newspapers, halftime shows by the band, and the selection of the one-act play. Expressive activity is considered “school-sponsored” if “students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive [them] to bear the imprimatur of [a] school.” This booklet of essays was deemed to be school-sponsored because it was being compiled and sent out to all parents of 4th graders as an example of the good work done by the students:
It would be reasonable, then, for the students’ families to view the essay booklet as bearing the imprimatur of Anderson Mill Elementary School and the School District.
As far as a “legitimate pedagogical concern” the principal’s mention of age-appropriateness did the trick:
…it cannot be denied that maintaining the age-appropriateness of school-sponsored expressive activities is a pedagogical concern that passes muster under Hazelwood.
The court noted that “school-sponsored” applies to more than the major productions of the school, like the yearbook. It also includes any activity that can be “characterized as part of the school curriculum” and “are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants.”
Finally, the court noted that this was not a case of viewpoint discrimination. The court viewed the principal’s actions as based on the subject matter, not the position the student was advocating. If some other student had submitted an essay that criticized the LGBTQ movement the principal would have presumably rejected that one as well.
This one is Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary School, decided by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 2, 2021. We found it at 2021 WL 786631.
DAWG BONE: BUT THE SAFE COURSE IS TO RELY ON GRAMMAR AND SPELLING.
Tomorrow: The latest Jane Doe case….