Gonzalez v. Sch. Bd. of Okeechobee County, No. 06-14320 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2008)
A U.S. district court in Florida has ruled that a high school Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) is entitled to official recognition as a noncurricular student group under the federal Equal Access Act (EAA). The court held that the denial of such recognition by the Okeechobee County School Board (OCSB) also violated the students’ free speech rights. After Okeechobee High School (OHS) principal Toni Wiersma denied a request by group of students to recognize their GSA club, they sought but failed to obtain recognition from the school board. They sued, alleging violation of the EAA and seeking an order directing OCSB to recognize the GSA as a noncurricular club and grant it access to school facilities on the same basis as other noncurricular student groups. The board subsequently adopted a new policy that stated: “To assure that student clubs and organizations do not interfere with the School Board's abstinence only sex education policy and the School Board's obligation to promote the well-being of all students, no club or organization which is sex-based or based upon any kind of sexual grouping, orientation, or activity of any kind shall be permitted.” This policy, the board said, justified denying recognition to the GSA even though other noncurricular student groups were recognized. The board argued that its decision: “1) is necessary to maintain the integrity of the abstinence only program, 2) will avoid unhealthy premature sexualization of students, 3) will protect GSA members from the risk of contact with potentially dangerous outside adult influences, and 4) will ensure that GSA members do not have access to adult only materials.”
The court granted the students’ motion for summary judgment. The court first rejected OCSB’s contention that recognizing the GSA would jeopardize federal funding the district receives for its abstinence-only sexual education program and would violate a Florida law that mandates abstinence as the core feature of such programs. OCSB had failed to present any evidence to substantiate this fear, the court found, noting that from over 700 schools with GSA clubs nationwide, about 80 of them in Florida, there is no proof that any lost funding for abstinence-only programs. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that recognition of a noncurricular student group does not amount to endorsement of that group. The argument that the GSA’s mission was inherently inconsistent with the abstinence-only message was meritless, the court ruled. The essence of this argument, it determined, was that because tolerance of sexual orientation is a subset of the topic of sexuality, any discussion of tolerance of sexual orientation is antithetical to the principle of abstinence. This premise was unsupportable, the court found, because the very nature of an abstinence-only program itself requires discussion of sexual matters, such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. No supposed inconsistency would justify an exception to the EAA’s requirements, the court held, particularly “in light of the EAA's explicit mandate that ‘[tlhe provisions of this subchapter shall supersede all other provisions of Federal law that are inconsistent with the provisions of this subchapter.’”
Next, the court rejected the board’s invocation of the EEA’s exception allowing denial of equal access when necessary to “maintain order and discipline on school premises, to protect the well being of students and faculty, and to assure the attendance of students at meetings is voluntary.” OCSB’s contention that recognizing the GSA would lead to the premature sexualization of students was a legitimate concern, the court acknowledged, but one that was “speculative at best and clearly without evidentiary support in the record.” As for OCSB’s fear that recognizing the GSA would place its student members at risk by facilitating access to them by adults who may pose a danger to them, the court found this concern could be resolved by requiring “all noncurricular student groups to seek permission from the principal or a designee in order for any adult who is not a faculty member to attend the meeting of any noncurricular student group or to contribute to its organization or operation.”
Finally, the court addressed the students’ First Amendment free speech claim. After reviewing U.S. Supreme Court precedent in student speech cases, the court determined that the “substantial disruption” standard established in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), was controlling because a message of tolerance for non-heterosexual students is political expression. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the GSA's message of tolerance would not “materially or substantially interfere with discipline in the operation of the school.” The school board had failed show that it refusal was motivated “by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”
Gonzalez v. Sch. Bd. of Okeechobee County, No. 06-14320 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: Information on other controversies and court rulings involving student clubs is available starting at the first link below. The second link is to a resource on this topic available from the COSA eDocs Store for a nominal download fee.]
NSBA School Law pages on club disputes
COSA eDocs Store resource on GSAs and the EEA, by Andrew J. Bracken