Last fall’s controversy at Marshall Elementary School in Eureka, in which elementary students reportedly had their freedom of speech protections denied, inspired SB 421, which prohibits discrimination or penalties for religious, political, or ideological viewpoints expressed in classwork, speech, attire, or student-organized activities. The measure was debated before the Senate Education Committee. Testimonies begin here at the 28:00 mark.
The legislation is patterned after the Safeguarding Personal Expression at K-12 Schools (SPEAKS) Act, proposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
The bill reads in part:
No student shall be discriminated against or penalized by a school for:
Engaging in religious, political or ideological speech or expressing a religious, political or ideological viewpoint in the same time, place and manner and to the same extent that other similarly situated students may engage in speech or express viewpoints at school; or
Expressing a religious, political or ideological viewpoint in a homework assignment, artwork, presentation or other written or oral assignment. Student work shall be assessed by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.
In October, sixth-graders at the school were engaged in a project entitled “Find Your Voice”. They were asked to name their heroes. One student offered slain Turning Point America founder Charlie Kirk, another President Trump. Each student, as reported by classmates, was criticized for their choices; the guidance counselor in charge of the project advised that Kirk “was not a hero” and that no political leaders could be listed, summarily eliminating the president.
Brianne Vinson’s daughter was one of those singled out that day. Brianne recounted her family’s experience in her testimony in support of the legislation:
“My daughter and her sixth-grade classmates were censored for expressing their religious and political views at Marshall Elementary, a school in Eureka. As a result of this discrimination and the school’s response, I had to withdraw all three of my children from the school.
“On October 28th, the guidance counselor gave students an assignment called ‘Find Your Voice.’ It should have been an empowering exercise. Instead, it became a lesson in censorship. The impact on these children was immediate, and the message was clear. Find Your Voice really meant, find the voice your teacher approves of.
“But it gets worse, after meeting with the principal and counselor, the next day, they addressed the sixth-grade class. Multiple students, including my daughter, reported that the principal told them that in the future, they should bring concerns to school officials first, not to their parents. I questioned the principal about this statement. She suggested that I homeschool my children.
“When I requested that my children be excused from this guidance counselor’s class, the school initially put them in detention during class, punishing them for my objection to unconstitutional conduct. When my daughter was sent to class anyway, despite my clear instruction otherwise, my husband questioned them. He was told it was a misunderstanding and that they would no longer accommodate us at all.
“I presented these concerns at a school board meeting in December. The board went into executive session. No public response, no corrective action, nothing changed.
“Due to the constitutional violations, I have filed federal discrimination complaints against the school, with the Department of Justice and the Department of Education. This bill will protect future students’ rights to express their political and religious viewpoints in the same manner as other students while giving families legal recourse. This isn’t a war on teachers. It’s a call for accountability, transparency, and respect for families.
“This is not about one counselor’s bad day. I went to the principal; she defended it. I went to the school board; they ignored it. This is about a system that punishes students for their beliefs, that tells children to hide concerns from their parents, and that retaliates when families speak up.”
Additional support for SB 421
Sarah Beth Nolan with Alliance Defending Freedom also spoke in favor of SB 421:
“It protects a student’s right to express a viewpoint on a relevant topic, during discussion, or study inside of class. It allows them to express a viewpoint in homework or class assignment evaluated by ordinary academic standards.
“A good example would be a student’s government class assignment to write a paper on policies from an administration, whether you pick a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, the paper should be graded on the criteria, not the fact that they picked one or the other.
“Organized clubs and gatherings led by students are given the same privileges. It doesn’t prevent the school from setting guidelines, as long as they’re applied evenly across the board, and then wearing clothing or jewelry that displays a message only to the same extent that they allow other messages.
“The bill does not protect any speech that is not already covered by the First Amendment, and that would be things like true threats, vulgarity, and lewd speech, bullying, and harassment.”
Opponents of the bill focused on a section providing for legal remedies for those alleging discrimination:
Any student or student club or organization that is harmed by a violation of this act or whose rights under this act are violated shall have a private cause of action against the school for declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, reasonable attorney fees and any other appropriate relief. If a court finds that a violation of this act has occurred, the court may award damages in an amount of at least $5,000 for each violation.
Timothy Graham with the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) testified that although his organization supports free speech for students, the provision on potential litigation is a concern:
“Under this bill, any student who has a grievance with a teacher, an administrator or a school district, or any student that is encouraged by an outside political group to feel aggrieved, now has a wide- open opportunity to initiate litigation. And they can do so with very little risk to themselves.
“That pressure doesn’t stay at the district level. It lands in the classrooms. Teachers are already balancing instruction, student needs, behavioral issues, and parent expectations. This bill adds another question to every decision. Could this decision I’m about to make turn into a lawsuit? This leads to defensive decision-making and does not lead to a better learning environment.”
