By Deacon Mike Manno
(The Wanderer) – Apparently, at a Michigan high school, school authorities
have taken the position that even if a student is speaking in private, either
in-person or by text, if that conversation can be heard by an eavesdropper who
might be offended, the student can be suspended from school.
And adding to the
student’s burden, while he is allowed to have his own religious and political
views, they cannot be expressed on any social media platform.
You see, at this
particular school, there is no such thing as free speech. At least until the
lawyers finish with it.
According to the
federal lawsuit filed by the Great Lake Justice Center in Lansing, Mich., on
behalf of the student’s parents, their son was a typical high school junior; a
member of the band and the football team, a good student, and a “great kid,” as
even the school administrators conceded.
So what was the
problem? Well, in this era of woke culture and overbearing and — quite frankly
— controlling school administrators, it’s not hard to see how the plaintiffs’
scenario plays out.
The young student
involved, David Stout, was expressing his Christian beliefs in a text message
with a friend. According to the lawsuit, one such conversation was started when
another friend texted David for his opinion on the subject of homosexuality.
David responded via text. However, school authorities were concerned that the
texting might have occurred on school property where it could be seen or
overheard (a text message, really?) by someone who might be offended by David’s
reply.
According to the
lawsuit, the school’s band director told David that “because the school is a
public place, [David] could not express his Christian beliefs or political
opinions in private conversations, for the very reason that someone overhearing
such beliefs and opinions could be hurt or offended.”
He was also accused of
not objecting to and possibly laughing at a racially insensitive joke, and by
not reporting same to school authorities, he was “stealing others’ happiness.”
When the student told
the band director that he “felt all of this was very one-sided and a method to
shame, intimidate, and silence conversations about Christians,” the band
director “admitted that [David’s] observation was correct.”
The matters came to a
head when David was suspended for three days and told he could no longer speak
of or text anything about his religious or political beliefs on school grounds,
or present his views on social media, on or off campus.
David A. Kallman,
David’s attorney, said in a press statement: “My client’s religious speech and
beliefs should be treated with tolerance and respect. Public schools may not
violate the Constitution and enforce a heckler’s veto of student speech.
Nothing David did caused any disruption or problem at the school. He has the
right to express his opinion in accordance with his sincerely held religious
beliefs, without vilification or punishment from the government for holding to
those beliefs.”
The petition claims
the school district, Plainwell Community, and several administrators, including
the principal, assistant principal, and two band directors, have violated
David’s First Amendment Rights of free speech and religious expression; and
companion provisions of the state constitution as well as several state and
federal laws.
A second federal
lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia by another Michigan firm, the
American Freedom Law Center, against the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The gist of the complaint is that Garland’s recent announcement that the
Justice Department will treat complaints to school boards as “threats” chills
their First and Fifth Amendment rights. The suit was brought on behalf of
parents in Salina, Mich., and Loudoun County, Va.
The lawsuit contends:
“America’s public schools are failing because ‘progressive’ school officials
are more concerned with promoting a particular agenda than properly educating
the children under their charge.
“Many parents and
legal guardians do not have the capacity or resources to educate their children
at home or at a private school and are thus compelled to send their children to
public school.”
It continues:
“Plaintiffs believe, and it is the law in many states, including Michigan and
Virginia, as well as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution,
that it is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to
determine and direct the care, teaching, and education of their children. . . .
“Unfortunately, many
public schools, including those in [the districts represented by the
plaintiffs], have come under the influence and power of ‘progressives’ who are
using these publicly funded schools to promote the divisive, false, harmful,
immoral, and racist agenda of the ‘progressive’ left.
“Rather than focusing
on core subjects such as reading, writing, arithmetic, and science, these
schools are using their power of compulsion to indoctrinate children with a
divisive, false, harmful, immoral, and racist agenda.”
The petition notes
that Garland has publicly stated that he will use the Justice Department to
“use its authority and resources to discourage threats…and other forms of
intimidation and harassment.” And he is opening a “snitch line” for people to
file reports against those that are confronting school boards for their
policies and who threaten political and legal action to have them removed. The
effect is to chill free speech and criticism of the government.
The suit also mentions
a conflict of interest Garland has. Many of the parents the attorney general’s
warning are directed at are concerned about the “teaching” of critical race
theory:
“The Attorney General
has a family financial conflict of interest…[his] son-in-law, Alexander ‘Xan’
Tanner, the co-founder and president of Panorama Education, has a lucrative
business promoting some of the objectionable indoctrination materials . . .
purchased by public school districts throughout the country . . . race-focused
surveys and conducts trainings on systemic oppression, white supremacy,
unconscious bias, and intersectionality — all under the rubric of
‘Social-Emotional Learning [(SEL)].’ Some of the relevant indoctrination
materials include SEL as Social Justice — Dismantling White Supremacism within
Systems and Self.”
The suit identifies
one of the parents suing as Xi Van Fleet, a Chinese citizen before immigrating
to the United States. She had endured Mao’s Cultural Revolution while in China
and thinks that the tactics being used by the attorney general are the same as
those used by the Chinese Communists to prevent parents from speaking out on
behalf of their children against the government.
Ms. Van Fleet, who
spent her school years in China, is very familiar with the tactics of
government suppression, say her lawyers.
The suit alleges that “the government is without authority to criminalize First
Amendment activity.”
(You can reach Mike
at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. CT
on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
