[ad_1]
Last spring, Shawnee Mission School District leaders responded to students who claimed that their freedom of expression had been violated by promising to explore ways to improve their freedom of expression.
Today, at the beginning of another school year, the conflict has degenerated into a legal battle involving the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU sued the district in federal court on behalf of three students and parents. Last month, the district responded with a petition asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit. Now, the ACLU has responded with a 33-page document asking the court to authorize the prosecution of the case. The lawsuit accuses the district of "totalitarian-type censorship tactics" to repress campus political speech "simply to avoid controversy or discomfort".
In a statement Wednesday, Lauren Bonds, ACLUThe company's legal director said, "Instead of simply acknowledging their violation of First Amendment rights, the district seems to double the mistakes made."
She stated that the ACLU would not even have filed the lawsuit if the district had simply acknowledged what they had done wrong and changed its policy.
In an email to The Star, school officials responded:The Shawnee Mission School District strongly supports the rights of all students to self-expression, as stated in the First Amendment. The district will continue to work with staff to ensure that these rights are respected and protected. "
The conflict began on April 20 when students from Hocker Grove College and Shawnee North Mission High School claimed that school authorities had assumed their first-amendment rights at a national day organized to protest and reinforce armed violence. school safety. The walkout coincided with a national recollection on the occasion of the 19th anniversary of the shooting at the same time. Columbine High School, which was the deadliest shootout in American history – until 17 people were killed in Parkland in February.
Shawnee students reported that school officials had stopped their student-organized rally, approved by the district, prevented students from taking photos and taking photos. Some students also indicated that they would face disciplinary action for participating in the protest and talking about gun violence.
A few days later, after the students complained, former acting superintendent Kenneth Southwick promised at a public meeting that he would personally take responsibility for everything that would be done to try to censor the students.
Students asked district officials to admit that they had violated the rights of freedom of expression, to apologize and to provide first-time training to all teachers, staff members and administrators.
In May, Southwick said the district would investigate complaints and would likely hold a fall training session for all school administrators on students' right to freedom of expression.
When the investigation progressed slowly, the Kansas ACLU sued the district and Southwick on May 31.
"It has been clear for nearly 50 years that school authorities can not prohibit students from participating in political speech on campus in the absence of a credible threat of material or substantial disruption," says the lawsuit.
The lawsuit indicates that a few days before the students' demonstration, the district chiefs ordered the building administrators to forbid students from discussing firearms, gun control and schools. perform the action.
The ACLU, in a first letter addressed to the district and the trial, cited a 1969 court ruling that public school students did not "lose their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the door of the school ".
The district argued that school principals were justified because they feared that others may have mistakenly assumed that student voices reflected the district's position.
He stated in court documents that student expression can be suppressed if school officials "reasonably conclude that it will materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school" even if the disturbance never materializes. And he argued that "school authorities can act to prevent problems as long as the situation could reasonably lead the authorities to foresee substantial disturbances or interference in the rights of others".
He also argued that Southwick could not be held personally responsible for the district's customs or policy.
[ad_2]
Source link
