Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, No. 05-38 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 17, 2005)
A Kentucky federal district court has ruled that a school district's mandatory diversity training program, which was implemented as part of a settlement of an earlier lawsuit brought on behalf of students seeking to form a Gay Straight Alliance club (GSA), does not violate the free speech, equal protection, or free exercise of religion rights of students and parents who object to the training despite the fact that it calls for tolerance of homosexuality. The students alleged that they are being forced to participate in training that offends their religious beliefs. Specifically, they argued that they are told in the video training that homosexuality is not a matter of choice and that they are prohibited from telling gays that those who engage in destructive lifestyles like homosexuality are wrong. Addressing the free speech issue, the district court found that the training videos in question are not school-sponsored speech but government speech and, as such, are not required to be viewpoint neutral, provided the content is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. After reviewing the training materials, the court concluded they were viewpoint neutral and neither favored any particular viewpoint nor elevated one opinion over the other. In addition, students were given the opportunity to comment on the training without parameters or threat of punishment. The restrictions placed on student speech were on harassing speech that is disruptive of the educational process. Such speech is clearly subject to prohibition under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Turning to the free exercise of religion claim, the court rejected the students' argument that the training sought to change their religious and ideological views on homosexuality. Even though the training offended their religious beliefs, the court found, it failed to place a burden upon the exercise of their religion. The court pointed out that there was no evidence that any student was compelled to renounce his or her religious beliefs. The court differentiated the facts in the present case from those in
Citizens for Responsible Curriculum v. Montgomery County Public Schools, 2005 WL 1075634 (D. Md. 2005), a case in which a federal court ruled that a Maryland school district's sex education program materials impermissibly promoted homosexuality by denigrating certain religious groups' views on the subject of homosexuality. The materials in the Maryland case seemed to elevate the religious views of one group over another, which was not the case in Boyd County. Lastly, the court rejected the parents' claim that the training violated their constitutional right to direct their children's religious and educational upbringing. Parents do not have the right to impede the school board's reasonable pedagogical prerogative of complying with a previous lawful court order by insisting on being able to opt their children out of required training.
Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, No. 05-38 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 17, 2005)
[Link to full opinion][
Editor's Note: For background on the lawsuits against the Boyd County school board from both directions on this issue, see below. See also information on the controversy and court decision in the Montgomery County case.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Boyd County controversy][NSBA School Law pages on Montgomery County disputes]