The legal journal Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly recently interviewed Life Legal Chief Counsel Katie Short about a significant First Amendment case progressing through the federal courts. The case, L.M. v. Middleborough, involves the free speech rights of public school students to express their opinions on controversial topics.
Liam Morrison, an honors student at Nichols Middle School, went to school wearing a T-shirt stating a simple biological fact: “There are only two genders.” He was summarily removed from class for violating the school’s policy on “hate speech” and ordered to either take the shirt off or go home. Liam bravely opted to go home – but was confused as to why he was forced to leave school when Nichols regularly displays “pride flags” and encourages students to wear “pride gear.”
A few days later, Liam wore a second T-shirt to express his disapproval of the school’s response to his first shirt. This one said, “There are [CENSORED] genders.” Again, he was taken to the principal’s office. Not wanting to miss another full day of school, Liam took off the T-shirt.
Liam and his parents sued the Middleborough School District, relying on Supreme Court precedent upholding the right of students to express their opinions, even on controversial subjects, so long as they do not “materially and substantially” interfere with school activities. Unfortunately, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school district, holding that Middleborough did not infringe on Liam’s right to free speech because the school believed the message on his T-shirt might cause a “material disruption.” In fact, there is no evidence that Liam’s classmates complained about the shirt or that it caused any disruption to the educational environment.
In her interview with the Mass. Lawyers Weekly, Attorney Short expressed concern that pro-life advocacy may be the next issue that school officials choose to suppress. She noted that Liam “had not initiated the discourse,” but rather was “responding to pride displays at the school and conveying that there are two sides to the issue.”
Life Legal filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that censoring Liam’s viewpoint creates an “enclave of totalitarianism” in the school which is inimical to the educational purpose of preparing students to function in a civil democracy. The censorship of Liam’s opinion in the face of the school’s relentless propagandizing teaches students to sit down and shut up when confronted with a message that violates their sincerely held beliefs. The seminal case of Tinker v. Des Moines, in which the Supreme Court sided with students who wore arm bands to school protesting the Vietnam War, specifically warned against this kind of thought control in the public schools.
This is not the end of the story, however. Liam’s attorneys are considering their options, which include appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. If they do, we will be there to advocate for the free speech rights of students in public schools to express their views without unconstitutional restrictions.