On Thursday, May 11, the organization Parents Defending Education filed a lawsuit against Olentangy Local School District over its anti-harassment policies regarding gender and pronouns. Parents Defending Education is a national organization “working to reclaim our schools from activists imposing harmful agendas”, according to the organization’s website. 

Specifically, Parents Defending Education is suing over the district’s policies that prohibit “threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing” speech “directed against a student or school employee”, given that the speech “has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance, opportunities, or benefits.” The organization claims that the district’s policies that prohibit discriminatory language against an individual or group, specifically against transgender people, “unconstitutionally compel speech.” 

Parents Defending Education’s lawsuit against Olentangy Local School District is not only unnecessary, but it actively promotes discriminatory, dangerous ideas. At times like now, where a staggering number of transgender and nonbinary youth have considered or attempted suicide, school and district policies that prohibit discriminatory language against transgender students are life-saving. A 2023 survey from The Trevor Project, an organization that works to prevent suicide among LGBTQ+ youth, found that half of transgender and nonbinary young people seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and nearly 20% attempted suicide in the past year. However, transgender and nonbinary youth who had access to supportive and affirming places, such as at school, reported lower rates of attempting suicide compared to those who did not. The survey demonstrated a clear need for LGBTQ+ students to be affirmed at school, as “nearly 2 in 3 LGBTQ young people said that hearing about potential state or local laws banning people from discussing LGBTQ people at school made their mental health a lot worse.” 

 If the clear benefits of policies that protect the safety of transgender students aren’t enough evidence of the need for Olentangy Local School District’s anti-discrimination policies, at the very least, it’s evident that the district’s anti-discrimination policies are not unconstitutional. In fact, federal courts have repeatedly ruled that Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which protect students from sex-based discrimination in schools receiving funding from the federal government, also applies to gender identity. In other words, Olentangy Local School District’s anti-discrimination policies that protect transgender students follow precedents set by federal courts and the U.S. Department of Education. 

It’s important to note that complying with federal guidelines regarding discrimination against transgender students and respecting students’ Constitutional rights to free speech are not mutually exclusive. As described by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), schools have a responsibility to stop student harassment based on gender identity, whilst also respecting the free expression rights of students, as long as such expression doesn’t substantially interfere with the rights of classmates. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court ruled that although students do not lose their right to free speech on school grounds, suppression of speech is justified if the speech substantially interferes with the operation of the school. Olentangy Local School District’s anti-discrimination policies do exactly this: they seek to prohibit discriminatory speech that constitutes harassment. Most people would agree that such discriminatory speech poses a substantial interference in the education of transgender students, therefore making these anti-discrimination policies Constitutional.

Other cases have set even stricter limits on student speech. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. The court decided that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech at school, and could refuse to sponsor speech that was “inconsistent with ‘the shared values of a civilized social order.’” The vast majority of people would consider harassment and discrimination, the forms of speech limited under Olentangy Local School District’s anti-discrimination policies, to be inconsistent with these shared values. When also considering the interference such speech has in the learning environment for students, Olentangy Local School District’s anti-discrimination policy is Constitutionally justified.

Olentangy Local School District’s anti-discrimination policies ultimately succeed in protecting students from harassment and discrimination, whilst simultaneously respecting the free speech of students. By prohibiting harassment and discriminatory language against students, in no way is the district preventing students from respectfully sharing their opinions. The district’s anti-discrimination policies demonstrate that everyone is deserving of respect, regardless of their background, identity, or beliefs, something we should all be in favor of.