Dear Editor,
Proposals to crack down on protests during school don’t just raise policy concerns, they raise serious constitutional ones as well. Restricting when and how students and teachers express themselves violates fundamental First Amendment protections, contradicts what their education has taught them, and takes away their opportunity to peacefully stand in solidarity with their community and express their beliefs on matters that directly affect their lives.
Parents deserve stability, consistency, and trust in their children’s schools. But trust in public education is not built by quieting lawful and peaceful civic expression. It is built when students, families, and teachers feel heard, respected, and safe within their school communities. Moments of collective concern or protest reflect deeper issues affecting students’ lives outside the classroom and in the community. Ignoring those realities does not create stability as it risks deepening disconnection and fear. Schools do not operate in isolation from their communities. When students and educators respond to events that directly affect their classmates and neighbors, that engagement reflects the very civic awareness schools are meant to cultivate. Stability is achieved when communities believe their schools respect and understand them, not by restricting their rights.
Framing school closures, walkouts, and calling in sick as evidence that students or teachers are “disrupting education for political purposes” fundamentally misunderstands constitutional rights. Rights are not conditional on convenience. The First Amendment does not disappear because accommodating speech requires planning or resources. Blaming individuals for exercising constitutional rights risks creating a dangerous precedent, one where government institutions can avoid accountability simply by labeling speech as disruptive.
Furthermore, suggestions that protests should only occur after school hours also misstate constitutional principles. The First Amendment does not impose time-of-day limits on protected expression. Schools may regulate conduct to ensure supervision and instruction continue, but they cannot broadly restrict when individuals may engage in civic activity or impose categorical bans that single out protest participation.
Students and teachers do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they go to school. There’s already existing legal framework that provides districts with the authority to address genuine disruption without sweeping new restrictions. Additional policy is not only unnecessary, but risks crossing constitutional boundaries and discouraging people from exercising their First Amendment rights.
– While educators have professional responsibilities during instructional time, they remain citizens with protected speech rights, particularly when speaking as private individuals on matters of public concern. Courts have long applied a balancing framework to these situations, weighing an educator’s First Amendment interests against a school district’s interest in maintaining efficient operations. Pickering v. Board of Education. Schools may impose discipline when conduct materially disrupts school operations, interferes with assigned duties, or occurs as part of an employee’s official responsibilities. Garcetti v. Ceballos, (2006); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, (1969).
– Students do not lose their rights to freedom of speech at school. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. While schools may regulate conduct that materially interferes with school operations or infringes on the rights of others, Tinker does not require punishment when school officials determine that student demonstrations serve legitimate educational or civic purposes. The decision reflects a fundamental principle: constitutional rights and education are not in conflict.
– Courts within the Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona, have emphasized that public schools play an important role not only in academic instruction but also in fostering civic development and respect for constitutional values. Applying Tinker, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that student expression, including collective action and speech on controversial issues, can be a protected and valuable part of the educational environment when it does not materially disrupt school operations. Pinard v. Clatskanie School District 6J (9th Cir. 2006); Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, (9th Cir. 2014).
Public schools exist not only to provide academic instruction, but to prepare young people for participation in a democratic society. Civic engagement, including peaceful protest, is part of that learning process. Schools can maintain order and fulfill their educational mission without sacrificing the constitutional rights of students and educators. Arizona communities deserve solutions that respect both educational stability and constitutional freedom because protecting constitutional rights is a part of education, not a barrier to it.
Dianne Post, Director
Secular Communities for AZ
