A federal judge stated that an Ohio school district's policy mandating teachers to use students' preferred pronouns constitutes “compelled speech” rather than a neutral directive. This decision emphasizes the ongoing legal and ethical debates surrounding LGBTQ+ rights in schools.
The ruling came following a case involving a teacher who resigned after refusing to comply with the district's pronoun policy due to her religious beliefs.
The federal court ruling found that the Jackson Local School District may have violated the First Amendment rights of Vivian Geraghty, a former teacher, by coercing her to resign due to her refusal to use transgender students' preferred pronouns based on her religious convictions.
Judge Barker's ruling said that the school district's policy was not neutral and generally applied, as it compelled teachers to express a viewpoint contrary to their beliefs.
Geraghty filed her lawsuit in December 2022, following discussions with school administrators regarding the use of preferred names and pronouns for students. The case shows growing legal conflicts over educational policies that relate to gender identity and the rights of values held by educators, particularly those with religious beliefs.
In the context of this ruling, the judge found that while the school district aims to ensure inclusivity for transgender students, the requirement to use preferred pronouns crosses into the territory of compelled expression.
Judge Batchelder commented, "Regardless of whether students can also discuss gender ideology in the abstract—which is also protected speech—the students’ protected speech here is their use of biological pronouns to affirm their own belief that people are either male or female".
This ruling is part of a broader trend where courts are being asked to weigh students' rights against the First Amendment protections of teachers and the moral convictions some hold regarding gender identity. As the conversation around gender continues to evolve, this case is likely to have implications for how similar policies are structured and enforced in schools across the nation.
The school district has yet to comment on the ruling, but the case may prompt a re-evaluation of existing policies and how they align with constitutional protections for both students and staff.
Many educators have welcomed the ruling as a defense of First Amendment rights, indicating that it provides necessary protection against policies that may infringe upon their ability to express personal beliefs.
