Ohio’s 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is set to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding a legal dispute involving a suburban Ohio school district’s policy on students’ preferred pronouns and the free speech rights of classmates who hold differing views on gender. The lawsuit, brought forth by Parents Defending Education, a national Christian organization, against the Olentangy Local School District in 2023, has garnered national attention. The case involves various policies implemented by the district that regulate language related to gender identity and sexual orientation.
The lawsuit challenges district policies that prohibit students from using language that may be deemed insulting or offensive by their peers, as well as policies that require the use of peers’ preferred pronouns. These policies are enforced both during and outside of school hours. Parents Defending Education argues that these policies violate students’ First Amendment rights by compelling them to affirm beliefs about gender that contradict their religious views.
The court previously rejected the group’s arguments, but a full court en banc hearing is scheduled to reconsider the decision. The case has attracted interest from a wide range of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative Manhattan Institute. Supporters of the parents’ group argue that the policies infringe on students’ freedom of speech and expression, particularly for those who adhere to traditional views on gender.
Disputing the broadness of the district’s policies, the Olentangy Local School District in Columbus, one of Ohio’s largest districts, asserts that their policies are in place to protect students from abuse and harassment. They argue that the group Parents Defending Education is advocating for “Christian, cisgender” students to use the First Amendment as a means to harass other students based on their gender identity. The district’s lawyers emphasized that the students in question are not facing the same level of oppression as other historically marginalized groups, such as illegal immigrants or LGBTQ+ individuals under discriminatory policies like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The district maintains that the lawsuit lacks evidence of harm, as no disciplinary action had been taken against any student prior to the legal challenge. Additionally, they highlight that their policies offer alternative ways for students to address individuals, such as using a person’s first name, a gender-neutral pronoun, or not referring to them at all. The district’s argument against claims of compelled speech and the availability of alternative options played a significant role in a recent court ruling in their favor.
