Tag: fires

  • LA Schools Reopen, But Recovery Will Be Long and Painful – The 74

    LA Schools Reopen, But Recovery Will Be Long and Painful – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    It was just after 1 am when Los Angeles charter school superintendent Ian Mcfeat started getting text messages and phone calls at a relative’s house where he was sheltering from the fires. 

    His neighbors said his house was burning down in the wildfires – along with his entire Altadena neighborhood of Los Angeles.

    Aveson School of Leaders, which McFeat runs and where his kids attended school just three blocks from his house, was also burning.

    Unable to sleep, Mcfeat drove away from his in-law’s house that he’d been evacuated to and made the drive back to Altadena.

    He drove through the fire lines and into his neighborhood to see if he could salvage anything, save anyone, or put out the fires that had raged on the east side for more than 48 hours straight, and decimated the Palisades in the west. 

    He was greeted with a scene out of a horror movie. Fueled by a violent windstorm and piles of brush left from a particularly wet winter last year, the firestorm was like a tornado shooting flames, blasting through his neighborhood.

    “It was like driving through a bomb scene,” said Mcfeat. “There were homes exploding. I probably shouldn’t have been there.” 

    Despite the devastating losses, Mcfeat can’t imagine not rebuilding his home and school right where they were in Altadena. But the road to recovery will be a long and painful one.

    “No doubt about it. We are going to rebuild,” said Mcfeat. Aveson has started a GoFundMe. At this point, a new site for the school has not been identified. The district hasn’t been able to help them yet.

    “I don’t know what we’re going to do,” said Mcfeat.

    The wildfires that burned Los Angeles this month are the costliest and most destructive in the city’s history, displacing more than 150,000 residents and killing at least 25 people. Two massive blazes fed by windstorms, the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire, simultaneously scorched the city from the sea to the mountains, filling the air with vast plumes of ash and smoke.

    As the wind and flames began to retreat last week, and firefighters gained control of the fires, schools began to reopen. And the kids began to return to class.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District, which is by far the largest district of about 80 in Los Angeles County, resumed instruction Monday after being totally closed since last Thursday. Seven schools remain shut because they’re located in evacuation zones. Another three won’t reopen because their buildings were badly burned or destroyed in the fires.  

    Dozens of much smaller districts in Los Angeles County also reopened this week, with the exceptions of two districts, Pasadena Unified, which encompasses Altadena, and La Cañada Unified, which neighbors Altadena to the west. 

    The Eaton fire has destroyed at least five schools but was mostly contained by Friday. 

    Kids from two of the LAUSD schools that burned in the Palisades, Marquez Charter Elementary School and Palisades Charter Elementary School, were placed, with intact school rosters, in close-ish LAUSD school buildings that already had other schools in them.

    The students who attended the burned schools were given their own entrances, classrooms and courtyards for kids to play. When parents dropped them off at class this week, there were a lot of tearful reunions.

    Families from Palisades Charter were somber, but excited to return to normalcy with their new space located inside of Brentwood Science Magnet School.  

    Joseph Koshki, a parent from the Palisades whose son attends third grade at Palisades Charter, walked holding hands with his son to their new classroom at Brentwood Science, which had been stacked with balloons.

    “When he saw his school burned on the news he was crying for days,” Koshki said of his child. “But when he heard that he was going to his new school with his old friends, he was so happy”.

    Nina Belden, a parent of a Palisades Charter student who had made an emergency evacuation from her house in the Palisades with her family, said it was important for the students at her daughter’s school to stay together and receive in-person instruction.

    “We were worried they were going to do something like remote learning,” said Beldon.

    Marquez Charter, which also burned in the Palisades fire, has a long history in the community, having opened in 1955 when the Palisades still had a frontier feel, before the neighborhood became a favorite of Hollywood stars and media execs.

    For Victoria Flores, who works as a paraeducator at Marquez, the school is part of her family. Flores went to Marquez when she was in elementary school, and her mother works in the cafeteria.

    “It was my home away from home. We are devastated by what happened,” Flores said.

    But Flores said she and the rest of the staff were glad to be relocated together at a LAUSD school called Nora Sterry, about ten miles from the burned Marquez campus.

    “We are a really close family,” said Flores. “That’s helped us a lot.”

    Upstairs at Nora Sterry, Clare Gardner’s class had about eight of twenty students show up on the first day of relocation.

    Her third-grade class was playing with clay and Mrs. Gardner, who is a twenty-seven-year veteran of Marquez, held back her tears as she helped students arrive into class.

    “We always call it the Marquez family,” Gardner said as the children greeted each other.

    One boy in Mrs. Gardner’s class said he was happy to be around his friends and teacher but sad about his classroom fish and books, which were lost in the fire.

    Later in the morning, LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho went to visit parents at Nora Sterry.

    After nearly a week off school, Carvalho says attendance is still below normal.

    “I think where that attendance is lacking is in schools that were directly affected” by the fires, Carvalho said.

    Also hurting attendance, Carvalho said, is the fact that many families are enduring temporary relocations, while others lack stable housing entirely.

    LAUSD staff attendance is back to normal, he said, while student attendance is about 88% — down from an average of about 90%, representing about 10,000 fewer students than normal.

     “As conditions of the families begin to normalize and stabilize, those [attendance] numbers will rise,” said Carvalho.

    For other schools in other areas of Los Angeles, recovery may be longer in the making. 

    Bonnie Brinecomb, principal of Odyssey Charter School – South in Altadena, which burned to the ground in the Eaton Fire, estimates that the homes of 40% of the students enrolled in the school also burned.

    Families and school staffers are scrambling to ensure displaced families have food, shelter and clothing, Brinecomb said. Some students are turning up for daycare at a nearby Boys and Girls Club that offered to take them in.  

    Brinecomb said Odyssey has partnered with McFeat’s school Aveson to search for new facilities. But the double loss of students’ homes and the schools’ campuses is a gutpunch.  

    “It’s just heartbreak. Pure shock,” she said. “You don’t even process how bad of a situation just happened.”

    Like Aveson, Odyssey has launched an online fundraiser and Brinecomb says the school will rebuild. How long that will take, though, remains an open question.  

    From the perspective of displaced children and families, the faster things return to normal, the better, said Dr. Frank Manis, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Southern California. 

    The experience of trauma can intensify if routines are disrupted for longer periods, and the intensity of the disruption matters as well, said Manis. Kids who lost their homes to fires may have a harder time bouncing back than those who only lost their schools, he said.    

    “It’s sort of on that spectrum of wartime PTSD, but not as bad,” said Manis. “So what it could lead to is nightmares, difficulty sleeping, and emotional or behavior problems that can last for quite a while.”

    Children fighting post-traumatic stress from the fires may become withdrawn, or act out in class, said Manis. But mostly, he said, the research from past natural disasters shows that even children badly impacted by the fires may begin to feel normal within a few months. 

    “Kids are pretty resilient,” said Manis. “But trauma can disappear for a while, and then it can resurface later. When everyone’s forgotten how bad it was, it can resurface.” 


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • No speech for you: College fires professor for calling America ‘racist fascist country’ in email to students

    No speech for you: College fires professor for calling America ‘racist fascist country’ in email to students

    When tenured Millsaps College professor James Bowley sent an email sharing his opinion on the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, he didn’t anticipate it would result in his termination. But in a perfect storm of overreach and red tape, that’s exactly what happened. 

    On Nov. 6, 2024 — the day after the election — Bowley emailed the students in his “Abortion and Religions” class, canceling that day’s session to “mourn and process this racist fascist country.” With only three students in the class, Bowley got to know them quite well, including their political feelings, and knew canceling class would be best for those students. As Bowley told FIRE, “I just want to be caring and kind to my students, whom I knew would be troubled by the election.” Bowley wasn’t just trying to get out of work; he did not cancel the much larger first-year writing class session he taught that same day because he had no reason to know how those students felt about the election. 

    Two days later, Millsaps Provost Stephanie Rolph informed Bowley that he had been placed on temporary administrative leave pending review, for the bizarre offense of using his “Millsaps email account to share personal opinions with [his] students.” 

    That’s right: Millsaps didn’t take issue with Bowley canceling class (likely because they’d have to punish lots of people; professors cancel class for all sorts of reasons). The only cited reason was the use of his email to share personal opinions with students, which unsurprisingly is not an actual policy violation. That’s right: The college simply fabricated a policy violation so it could punish a professor for his speech. Frank Neville, president of the private college, has ignored hundreds of calls to reinstate Bowley, who was unable to do his job for over three months until yesterday, when he was eventually fired.

    Welcome to Millsaps, a labyrinth of academic bureaucracy where personal opinions may not be shared.

    Millsaps College president Frank Neville denied a committee recommendation and doubled down on Bowley’s leave being both justified and necessary, without explanation. (Barbara Gauntt / Clarion Ledger / USA TODAY NETWORK)

    Professor punished without due process

    Everything about Bowley’s treatment goes directly against Millsaps’ own fundamental principles of “freedom of speech and expression.” While Millsaps is a private institution not bound by the First Amendment, its commitment to free speech leads any reasonable student or faculty member to believe they are being promised expressive rights that align with the First Amendment. 

    Courts have recognized protection for a great deal of faculty speech on matters of public concern (say, a presidential election) because higher education depends on the wide exposure to robust exchanges of thoughts and ideas. But Millsaps’ actions here signal that it doesn’t take its own principles seriously and is making up its own standards for free speech and expression. That’s not okay with us — and it’s unfair to the students and faculty of Millsaps.

    Not only did FIRE request that Millsaps drop the investigation and reinstate Bowley, but so did more than 100 students, reportedly, (pretty impressive for a college of only about 600) and over 500 alumni. And when Bowley contested the provost’s decision to place him on leave, a grievance committee made up of faculty members determined that Millsaps couldn’t identify a single policy that Bowley had violated. The committee recommended that Bowley be reinstated immediately.

    FIRE remains by Bowley’s side, fighting for his return to teaching — and his right to share his opinions with students.

    The grievance committee, like FIRE, also found that Bowley was not afforded proper due process. Bowley was placed on leave before receiving a hearing and final determination. By doing so, the provost created an intermediary step in the process of dismissing a professor that exists nowhere in the handbooks — all without Bowley having any prior violations or disciplinary actions taken against him.

    But Neville seemed unfazed by the calls from the Millsaps community and unconvinced by the facts presented to him. On Jan. 10, Neville denied the grievance committee’s recommendation and doubled down on Bowley’s leave being both justified and necessary, without explanation.

    Calls to reinstate Bowley continued, this time reaching tens of thousands of people. But that still wasn’t enough. On Jan. 14, Bowley was told in a meeting that he was fired for not exercising restraint and not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s. To be clear: The college fired Bowley for an offense – not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s – of which he wasn’t accused. It’s no surprise that Bowley could not extricate himself from what Millsaps made into an impossible situation. 

    Ferris State cannot punish professor for comedic — and now viral — video jokingly referring to students as ‘cocksuckers’ and ‘vectors of disease’

    News

    It’s a joke, people. But violating faculty rights is not.


    Read More

    Even if the college had originally charged Bowley with not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s, his email to his class still wouldn’t qualify. Whatever interest Millsaps may have in preventing faculty from purporting to speak on its behalf does not justify automatic punishment for simply not asserting that one isn’t speaking for the college. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that a teacher could not be punished for a letter to the editor he wrote in which he identified himself as a teacher at a certain school. Just because Bowley is identified as working at Millsaps (via his faculty email), doesn’t mean his speech is transformed into speech on behalf of the college. 

    Millsaps cannot overcome this principle just because it wants faculty to indicate whether views expressed “are individual or those of the institution.” Nothing in Bowley’s email can reasonably be interpreted as speaking on behalf of Millsaps, as it is commonly understood that when using their college email, faculty members are speaking for themselves rather than conveying that they speak for their employer. And here, Bowley was very clearly sharing an opinion – a criticism of an election outcome – that any reasonable person would understand as being his own opinion. 

    Bowley told FIRE yesterday: “I love Millsaps College and even more I love my students, but censorship by an administration by definition means that it is not education anymore; it is not a legitimate college.”

    FIRE remains by Bowley’s side, fighting for his return to teaching — and his right to share his opinions with students.

    Source link

  • Extreme drought, high winds helped spark the California fires (CBS News)

    Extreme drought, high winds helped spark the California fires (CBS News)

    High winds intersecting with historic drought levels are contributing to the dangerous conditions that sparked the multiple fires raging in the Los Angeles area. Dr. Helen Holmlund, an assistant professor of biology at Pepperdine University, joins CBS News with more on the extreme conditions. 

    Related link:

    Shall we all pretend we didn’t see it coming, again?: higher education, climate change, climate refugees, and climate denial by elites 

    Thinking about climate change and international study (Bryan Alexander)

    Source link

  • FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

    FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

    It is hard to imagine a legal claim that violates basic First Amendment principles more thoroughly than does President-elect Donald Trump’s lawsuit against veteran Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register. 

    His civil lawsuit arises from a poll published before the November 2024 election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris in the lead in Iowa. It seeks damages and a court order to prevent the newspaper from publishing any future “deceptive polls” that might “poison the electorate.”  

    Trying to punish newspapers for supposedly “false” reports is not a new phenomenon. Backlash to the Sedition Act of 1798, in which Congress criminalized “false” criticism of some politicians, laid the foundation of First Amendment doctrine. This lawsuit is just a new name for the same theory long rejected under the First Amendment.

    Trump’s lawsuit, brought under an Iowa law against “consumer fraud,” violates long-standing constitutional principles. It’s also entirely meritless under the Iowa law. 

    Enlisting the courts to settle political grudges is directly at odds with the First Amendment’s protection for political speech.

    The lawsuit is the very definition of a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment. And it’s part of a worrying trend of activists and officials using consumer fraud lawsuits to target political speech they don’t like. 

    FIRE opposes SLAPP suits and is representing Selzer in order to vindicate her — and your — First Amendment rights.

    Every election has its outlier polls.

    Election polling is core First Amendment activity. It asks people how they will vote and shares an opinion — an educated guess — predicting the likely outcome. Every presidential election cycle brings hundreds of polls, and every cycle has outliers giving false hope (or added anxiety) to supporters of a given candidate.

    Selzer’s Iowa polls have long enjoyed “gold standard” status, accurately predicting Donald Trump’s victories in Iowa in 2016 and 2020. But despite using the same methodology as her previous polls, Selzer’s final 2024 poll, commissioned by the Register, was this cycle’s outlier, predicting a narrow Harris victory. 

    Selzer owned up to the margin between her poll and the eventual outcome of Trump comfortably winning Iowa. She acknowledged the “biggest miss of my career” and did what good pollsters do: She explained her methodology and publicly shared the poll’s crosstabs (results reported out by demographic and attitudinal subgroups), its questionnaire (with demographic information and weighted and unweighted responses), and her theories on the resultsinviting others to offer theirs in turn

    A bogus ‘consumer fraud’ lawsuit

    The post-election transparency Selzer provided wasn’t enough for Trump, despite his winning the presidency.

    During a press conference last month, Trump theorized that the poll was fabricated entirely and pledged to “straighten out the press” because it was “almost as corrupt as our elections are.” That evening, he sued Selzer, her polling company, the Register, and the newspaper’s parent company, Gannett, claiming the poll’s publication violated Iowa’s consumer fraud statute

    This lawsuit uses an inapplicable state statute as a cudgel to force Selzer and the Register to waste time and money on lawyers to respond to the allegations. Enlisting the courts to settle political grudges is directly at odds with the First Amendment’s protection for political speech. 

    Trump’s calls to investigate pollster put First Amendment at risk

    News

    President-elect Donald Trump called for an investigation after Des Moines Register pollster Ann Selzer predicted just days before the election that he would lose Iowa by three points.


    Read More

    Start with the law. Consumer fraud laws target sellers who make false statements to get you to buy something. They’re about the scam artist who rolls back the odometer on a used car, not a newspaper poll or TV weather forecast that gets it wrong.

    Just read the Iowa statute. Trump must identify a fraudulent or deceptive statement “in connection with the advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the solicitation of contributions for charitable purposes.” Selzer’s poll did not advertise or solicit anything, much less “consumer merchandise,” which Iowa law defines as that intended for “personal, family, or household uses.” 

    Trump’s complaint also argues Selzer engaged in “brazen election interference.” But publishing a poll doesn’t constitute “election interference.” Under Iowa law, election “interference” is conduct like submitting a “counterfeit official election ballot,” encouraging someone to vote when you know they legally cannot, or other forms of direct interference with the conduct of the election. 

    Conducting and publishing a poll is protected First Amendment speech. It has nothing to do with “election interference.”

    The use of consumer fraud lawsuits collides with the First Amendment

    The notion that officials can recast the electorate as “consumers” to punish political speech or news they don’t like is squarely at odds with the First Amendment — yet it’s a theory increasingly advanced by partisans on both the left and the right. From the left, there are calls to regulate “misinformation” on social issues and, from the right, calls to impose “accountability” on news media for their political commentary. 

    Consumer fraud statutes have no place in American politics, or in regulating the news. But it has become an increasingly popular tactic to use such laws in misguided efforts to police political speech. For example, a progressive nonprofit tried to use a Washington state consumer protection law in an unsuccessful lawsuit against Fox News over its COVID-19 commentary. And attorneys general on the right used the same “we’re just punishing falsehoods” theory to target progressive outlets. Right now, Texas is arguing in a federal appellate court that it can use the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act to punish political speech even if it is “literally true,” so long as officials think it’s misleading.

    Any attempt — by Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else — to punish and chill reporting of unfavorable news is an affront to the First Amendment.

    Attempts to prohibit purportedly false statements in politics are as old as the republic. In fact, our First Amendment tradition originated from colonial officials’ early attempts to use libel laws against the press. 

    America rejected this censorship after officials used the Sedition Act of 1798 to jail newspaper editors for publishing “false” and “malicious” criticisms of President John Adams. Thomas Jefferson pardoned and remitted the fines of those convicted, writing that he considered the Act “to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.” 

    The Supreme Court has since described our experience with the Sedition Act as the event that “first crystallized a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment.” And it has held that government efforts to bar the publication of news reports are “the essence of censorship.” 

    Since then, courts have soundly and repeatedly rejected modern campaigns to regulate “false” speech because, under the First Amendment, “the citizenry, not the government, should be the monitor of falseness in the political arena.”

    SLAPPs chill speech because lawyers are expensive and lawsuits are stressful

    Even when a court dismisses a meritless lawsuit against a speaker, the person filing the lawsuit still “wins” because their critics must spend time and money on the legal process. As Trump once colorfully put it after losing a lawsuit: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” 

    Some states have anti-SLAPP statutes that require a plaintiff suing over speech to show his case has merit. If he cannot, the plaintiff has to pay the defendant’s legal fees — discouraging plaintiffs from chilling speech through the cost of a lawsuit. But Iowa is not among those states.

    So FIRE is stepping in to represent Selzer and her polling company, Selzer & Company, against this baseless suit. By providing pro bono support, we’re helping to remove the financial incentive of SLAPP suits — just as we’ve done when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a reddit moderator was sued for criticizing a self-proclaimed scientist, and when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering.” (If you are a lawyer who wants to help provide pro bono support to people facing lawsuits for their speech, please join FIRE’s Legal Network.)

    Any attempt — by Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else — to punish and chill reporting of unfavorable news is an affront to the First Amendment. Hearing an opinion or prediction that turns out to be “wrong” is the price of living in a free society. And no American should fear that their commentary on American elections should subject them to liability.

    FIRE protects the First Amendment, whether it’s threatened by the president of the United States or your local mayor. And we do so for all Americans, whether you’re a conservative student unable to wear a “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt, a professor censored under Florida’s STOP WOKE Act, or a libertarian mother arrested for criticizing her city’s mayor

    If your First Amendment rights are threatened, contact FIRE.

    Source link

  • Free speech advocates converge to support FIRE’s ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ federal court appeal

    Free speech advocates converge to support FIRE’s ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ federal court appeal

    FIRE, supported by a wave of prominent organizations and scholars as “friends of the court,” has appealed a district court’s ruling that limited the rights of students to attend middle and high school wearing clothes bearing the “Let’s Go Brandon” political slogan. FIRE is asking a federal appeals court to strike down the decision below and uphold freedom of expression for public school students, and a broad spectrum of free speech advocates and language experts are backing us up.

    So what happened? In April 2023, FIRE sued a west Michigan school district and two administrators for preventing two students from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. The “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan originated during an October 2021 NASCAR race. After the race, won by Brandon Brown, members of the crowd chanted “Fuck Joe Biden” during Brown’s post-race interview. A commentator remarked that the fans were shouting “Let’s Go Brandon!” 


    WATCH VIDEO: NASCAR fans chant “Fuck Joe Biden” after the race.

    Since then, the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and Republican members of Congress have used the phrase widely, including during Congressional floor speeches, to show their displeasure with the Biden administration. The “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan airs uncensored on broadcast television, national cable news, and broadcast radio for all to hear. In the case on appeal, FIRE’s clients wore their “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts to school to express their disapproval of Biden and his administration. 

    During the lawsuit, the school acknowledged the students did not cause any disruption with their apparel. Yet this past August, the District Court for the Western District of Michigan upheld the school district’s censorship of “Let’s Go Brandon” apparel, holding “Let’s Go Brandon” is legally indistinguishable from “Fuck Joe Biden” and therefore constitutes “profanity.” 

    As FIRE’s appeal argues, that’s not how speech works. “Heck” is not the same as “hell,” “darn” is not the same as “damn,” and “Let’s Go Brandon” is not the same as “Fuck Joe Biden.” The government may not censor public school students’ political expression absent substantial disruption. Nor may school districts bypass this First Amendment protection by dubbing disfavored political speech “profane.” 

    This case will play a critical role in protecting the rights of other minor students to engage in non-disruptive political expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

    Last week, 18 individuals and organizations, including some of the world’s foremost linguistic experts, joined together to file eight amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs in support of minors’ free speech rights. These briefs urge the Sixth Circuit to recognize what has long been understood outside the courtroom — sanitized expression is, by design, distinguishable from the profane language it replaces: 

    Linguistic Scholars: Dr. Melissa Mohr, Dr. Rebecca Roache, Professor Timothy Jay, Professor John H. McWhorter, and Professor Steven Pinker are internationally recognized linguistic scholars whose works focus on the history, psychology, and sociology of swearing. Each has written extensively on how language works and the role it continues to play in society. Together, they submitted a brief through Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, helpfully delineating the different types of “sanitized expression,” including euphemisms like “Let’s Go Brandon,” and describing their ubiquity and importance in political discourse. As they state at the beginning of their brief: “This case is not about swearing; it is about not swearing.”

    First Amendment Scholars: Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor Clay Calvert, Professor Roy Gutterman, Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea, and Professor Joseph A. Tomain submitted an amicus brief through Cornell Law School’s First Amendment Clinic and attorney Michael Grygiel. Drawing on decades of study, the scholars methodically apply seminal First Amendment decisions to this particular case. Their brief argues: “the lower court failed to apply Tinker’s ‘substantial disruption’ test, as required when schools seek to prohibit student expression within the school environment that communicates a political message,” and thus “departed from longstanding public student constitutional free speech principles.”

    Liberty Justice Center: The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief asserts the district court’s decision represents an unprecedented expansion of “profanity” and is part of a nationwide increase in political censorship. The brief describes how “censorship of entirely mainstream political discourse has become all too common around the country” and school authorities increasingly seek to restrict free expression. The LJC argues that the district court’s opinion exacerbates this growing problem, by authorizing schools to treat “every euphemism . . . as the equivalent of its reference.”

    Dhillon Law Group, Young America’s Foundation, and Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute: These organizations submitted an amicus brief asserting the lower court’s failed to properly apply Tinker and its progeny to the students’ “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts, which likewise represented political, non-profane student speech. Through careful analysis of First Amendment doctrine, their brief explains that the “district court erred in disregarding the political nature of appellants’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ apparel” and undervaluing the importance of First Amendment protections in K-12 public schools.

    National Coalition Against Censorship: The National Coalition Against Censorship submitted an amicus brief through Covington & Burling LLP to challenge the district court’s categorization of “Let’s Go Brandon” as unprotected “profane” expression. The brief argues that the “district court’s analysis would create a new, ill-defined category of ‘euphemistic’ profanity,” and “give school officials wide latitude to silence viewpoints they find objectionable, a result at odds with existing First Amendment doctrine.” The brief asserts that the lower court’s decision “represents a serious departure from our nation’s historical commitment to protecting political speech” and urges the Sixth Circuit to reverse. 

    Manhattan Institute: The Manhattan Institute’s amicus brief emphasizes the critical importance of preserving free speech rights in K-12 public schools, where students develop the skills necessary to productively engage in democratic society. The brief describes case law reflecting the importance of these freedoms in primary and secondary schools — and argues the district court’s opinion fails to “accurately reflect this understanding.”

    Parents Defending Education: Parents Defending Education submitted an amicus brief through Consovoy McCarthy PLLC arguing that the district court’s decision cannot be reconciled with First Amendment principles. The brief emphasizes how the school codes at issue in this case are part of a growing and concerning “trend of schools adopting speech codes prohibiting controversial speech.” And the brief asserts each of the cases relied on by the lower court are distinguishable.

    Buckeye Institute: The Buckeye Institute’s amicus brief contends that under established First Amendment doctrine, “[r]egulation of speech under the First Amendment should constitute a rare exception.” Yet, they argue, the Michigan school district, motivated by desire to censor what it deems undesirable speech, disregarded that doctrine in order to censor non-disruptive political speech “that does not fall within one of the Supreme Court’s approved exceptions” to the First Amendment’s protection. 

    Our clients and their counsel are grateful for the support of this impressive and diverse amicus coalition. This case will play a critical role in protecting the rights of other minor students to engage in non-disruptive political expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

    Source link