Thanks to President Trump, June is less gay and more patriotic.
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) June 1, 2025
Pride flags are out and military parades are in.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court should have agreed to take the case and ruled for the student on free speech grounds.
"If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity," Alito wrote, "then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues”….
The case from Massachusetts involved a student identified in
court papers as L.M. who tried to wear the shirt at Nichols Middle School in
Middleborough in 2023. When students and a teacher complained, the principal
told the student that he could not return to class unless he changed clothes.
He refused and was sent home.
Later, the student came to school wearing a T-shirt that this time said "There Are CENSORED Genders." He was told that was not permitted, either. Rather than missing more school, he changed clothes.
His parents sued, saying the school's policy violated the First Amendment. They relied on a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that public school students have First Amendment rights. In that case, students sought to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.
The Supreme Court therein established a precedent
in which the justices ruled 7–2 it was unconstitutional when an Iowa school suspended students who wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. "It can hardly be argued," wrote Justice Abe Fortas, "that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Tinker, however, came with a caveat. Schools can seek to stymie expression that causes, or could potentially cause, a "substantial disruption."
The issue arose when "a teacher reported the shirt to the school principal's office, noting that LGBT students were present that day and expressing concerns that the shirt could disrupt classes." However, as Justice Alito wrote in his dissent
And just as in Tinker, some of L.M.'s classmates found his speech upsetting. Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our "often disputatious" society and Tinker made abundantly clear that he "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint" is no reason to thwart a student's speech. True, NMS also forecasted that L.M."s shirts could lead to a "standoff" between students who support L.M."s view and those who oppose it. But the schools in Tinker were similarly worried that students "would wear arm bands of other colors" and hat this could "evolve into something which would be difficult to control." If anything, the risk in Tinker was far less speculative than in this case. In Tinker, several students had already "made hostile remarks to the children wearing armbands," and a math teacher "had his lesson period practically 'wrecked' chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker" over her armband. Even so, Tinker deemed the schools' concern an "undifferentiated fear" that could not "overcome the right to freedom of expression."
The importance of being sensitive to the feelings of an individual or group was at the core of the political correctness movement, which morphed into the similar, albeit somewhat different, interest in being woke. There were two competing values at stake in this case, one the claimed right of not having one's feelings hurt.
The other is freedom of speech- and its antagonist, viewpoint discrimination. Alito noted also
Inside and outside the classroom, NMS promotes the view that gender is a fluid construct and tha a person's self-defined identity- not biological sex- determines whether that person is male, female, or something else. NMS also encourages students to embrace and express this viewpoint, including during the school's "PRIDE Spirit Week."
Strangely enough- or perhaps not strangely- four of the six conservative Justices have struck a blow against freedom of speech.
This presents a great opportunity for those Democrats who have been posing as bold opponents of the party establishment by arguing that left-wing Democrat shave been pandering to the LGBTQ+ community. They can pull a Sister Souljah move by slamming the (successful) effort by this special interest, a relatively reliable Democratic voting bloc, to demand that there be only one opinion on the controversy over gender.
Alternatively, they can declare their support for individuals who are not exclusively and decisively heterosexual. Then they could stress that they hold even more dearly the right of free speech, enshrined as Amendment 1A in the United States Constitution.
And may Minneapolis, Chicago, and Buffalo enjoy consistent and endless days of 100% sunshine every winter. That is roughly as likely as these Democrats growing a spine. Similarly, Donald J. Trump can crusade against the "woke" and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs all he wants. He, too, will stay silent about the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison because stifling free speech is an even greater priority for him than pandering to the traditional values of his followers.
No comments:
Post a Comment