Federal Appeals Court Tells Schools They Cannot Coerce 'Preferred Pronoun' Use

Students cannot be compelled to use 'preferred pronouns' when referring to individuals who identify as 'transgender,' according to a ruling issued on Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court's decision, which was made en banc with a vote of 10-7, determined that Ohio’s Olentangy Local School District (OLSD) does not have the authority to 'wield their authority to compel speech or demand silence from citizens who disagree with the regulators’ politically controversial preferred new form of grammar.' This ruling emphasizes the importance of free speech and the limits of public schools acting in loco parentis.

The court's ruling highlighted that 'American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy.' It pointed out that grammar has evolved in the United States without governmental interference. The court argued that the debate surrounding pronouns should be settled through individual persuasion rather than through government coercion.

The lawsuit was initially filed by Defending Education (DE) in 2023. The organization contended that the school district’s anti-harassment policy forced students to affirm beliefs about sex and gender that contradicted their own deeply held convictions. Nicole Neily, the founder and president of DE, stated that the court’s decision underscores the significance of free speech and the limitations of public schools in their role as guardians of students.

The ruling also indicated that students who refused to use 'preferred pronouns' faced potential punishment, including suspension and expulsion. The school district had classified 'transgender'-identified students as a protected class, which further complicated the issue. Additionally, the court noted that the mandate regarding pronoun use extended beyond the classroom, impacting students' personal speech on social media outside of school grounds.

In its decision, the court criticized the school district for placing the burden of compliance on students who do not identify as transgender. The ruling stated that the district had taken a side in the ongoing policy debate. Furthermore, the decision underscored that the district's ban on biological pronouns discriminated based on viewpoint and failed to provide evidence that such speech would disrupt school functions. The 112-page decision articulated that it would be nearly impossible for students to avoid using pronouns in everyday conversations and that the use of biological pronouns was not intended to belittle others. Sarah Parshall Perry, DE's vice president and legal fellow, remarked that the ruling represents a significant victory for student speech and parental rights, indicating that the court's decision would benefit families seeking to uphold their rights within educational settings.