COLUMBUS, Ohio — A significant legal battle is underway as a federal appeals court in Cincinnati prepares to hear arguments concerning a controversial gender pronoun policy implemented by a school district in a suburb of Ohio. The case examines the tension between the school district’s policy and the free speech rights of students who hold the belief that there are strictly two genders. This legal encounter has drawn attention from diverse organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative Manhattan Institute. Additionally, Ohio’s solicitor general has expressed interest in the case, representing 22 states that have stakes in its outcome.
Initially, a lower court had dismissed claims that the district’s policies infringed on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, a decision that was confirmed in July by a three-judge panel from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The full court will now revisit this ruling in a rare en banc session.
Central to the dispute are the district’s policies that bar students from using gender-specific language deemed derogatory or unwelcome and require adherence to peers’ chosen pronouns. The electronic devices policy expands these restrictions to non-school hours, banning the circulation of content perceived as disruptive or derogatory based on attributes like gender identity or sexual orientation. A separate anti-discrimination rule also prohibits language considered discriminatory when under school jurisdiction.
The parents’ collective, Parents Defending Education, formed to challenge educational policies regarding race, diversity, and sexuality, argues these rules compel them to endorse the concept of gender fluidity, opposing their religious beliefs. Their contention is that students are being coerced into affirming multiple gender identities, contradicting their conviction in binary gender roles. They posit that these policies infringe upon their constitutional rights by mandating “viewpoint-based” speech and suggest that disciplinary actions for non-compliance violate free speech guarantees.
In contrast, the Olentangy Local School District defends its policies as essential protections against student harassment. It argues that the organization’s aim is to secure free speech rights to discriminate against transgender students. The district claims that Parents Defending Education has not substantiated any harm since no disciplinary measures have been enacted against students under these policies. Furthermore, Olentangy offers alternatives for students who prefer not to use specific pronouns, such as using a person’s name or gender-neutral language, thus arguing that their policy is not inherently compulsory.
The three-judge panel’s previous decision favoring the district took into consideration these alternatives, finding that the policies do not force students to make specific statements. As this significant legal examination continues, it raises critical questions about the balance between safeguarding individual rights and maintaining a respectful educational environment.
