Pierce County school district suspends its controversial free speech policy
A staff expression policy that regulates Peninsula School District staff members' speech as employees has been suspended.
The school board suspended Policy 5254 in a unanimous vote at their meeting on May 20.
'I think over the past few months since we implemented the policy, the board has heard quite a bit from the community,' board member David Olson, who made the motion, said at the meeting. ' ... I would have to admit that there was some unintended impact of the policy, mostly that there's a lot of misunderstanding, ambiguity about the policy, what the potential intent was.'
Policy 5254 states that the district can regulate employees' expression when they 'speak within their official capacity' and thus represent the district. Employees' free speech is protected under the First Amendment when they speak as individual citizens 'on a matter of public concern,' but they may still receive 'disciplinary action up to and including termination' if their expression 'has an adverse impact on district operations and/or negatively impacts an employee's ability to perform their job for the district,' according to the policy.
The policy describes staff expression to include 'the performance of job responsibilities and how (staff) represent the district in their use of district email accounts, school district buildings, district property, classrooms and how they present themselves to students.' It also includes a line about social media: 'Employees who use social media platforms are encouraged to remember that the school community may not be able to separate employees as private citizens from their role within the district.'
The board adopted Policy 5254 in October 2024, and has heard several public comments at board meetings since then criticizing the policy's breadth and possible impact on staff, according to The News Tribune's reporting. One member of the Minter Creek Elementary Parent-Teacher Association told the board at the April 22 meeting that the staff expression policy has silenced some teachers from speaking out about the district's controversial plan to switch principals across several schools starting in July.
In a statement shared at the school board meeting on May 6 and posted online, Superintendent Krestin Bahr addressed a number of concerns shared by parents and staff including those around the staff expression policy.
'We value the input of our educators,' Bahr said at the meeting. 'Feedback from our staff informs ongoing decision-making, though we remain bound by confidentiality and professional standards ... Staff are not just permitted, but encouraged to have honest conversations with their principals and share their perspectives.'
She also said that a workgroup would be taking place later in May to 'help clarify the policy's enforcement,' working with the district's 'labor partners to ensure it protects employee voice while upholding (their) shared professional responsibilities.'
School Board President Natalie Wimberley asked Superintendent Bahr prior to the vote May 20 to provide an update on the group gathered to discuss the policy and its implementation.
Bahr said that district staff and union members visited another school district where the policy first originated to learn more about that district's process and reasons for adopting it. Based on the apparent differences between that district and the Peninsula School District's approach to the policy, she supports the policy's suspension, she said at the meeting.
After the vote, Peninsula Education Association president Carol Rivera told the board during public comment that the association supports the policy suspension and 'welcomes the opportunity' to work with the district's task force on the policy. The Peninsula Education Association is the district's teachers' union.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Florida education officials grill Hillsborough superintendent over LGBTQ+ books in schools
State Board of Education members recently grilled Hillsborough County's public schools superintendent after state officials condemned books in his district's schools that they called "pornographic." Superintendent Van Ayres was called to the June 4 board meeting after receiving a letter from Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. At issue: The books "Call Me By Your Name" and "Jack of Hearts (And Other Parts)," which both involve LGBTQ+ themes. Diaz, who is in line to become the next president of the University of West Florida, said they were "pornographic and inappropriate books." According to the book's publishers, "Call Me by Your Name" is the "story of a sudden and powerful romance that blossoms between an adolescent boy and a summer guest at his parents' cliffside mansion on the Italian Riviera," and "Jack of Hearts (And Other Parts)" is "about an unapologetically queer teen working to uncover a blackmailer threatening him back into the closet." "Unfortunately, your lack of leadership regarding the selection, approval and maintenance of library media materials continues to put children at risk and undermines parental rights," Diaz wrote in his May 9 letter to Ayres, who has led the district – the seventh largest in the U.S. – since November 2023. Florida's public schools have seen a significant increase in book removals, driven by legislation that empowers parents to challenge materials they consider inappropriate, leading to the removal of thousands of books that address LGBTQ+ themes, race, or even classic literature. It's sparked a national controversy, with critics arguing that such moves constitute censorship and violate First Amendment rights, prompting lawsuits from authors, publishers, and advocacy groups. In Hillsborough County, more than 600 books were removed from circulation in mid-May, after state officials – including Diaz and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier – pressured school districts. Those books included the two mentioned by Diaz. In heated questioning, board members asked Ayres why these books were not flagged sooner. But Ayres said "inappropriate materials will absolutely not be in our libraries, and it does not take a process for us to do that." Banned book list: Hundreds of books pulled from Florida schools listed in new DOE release. Here are the titles Board member Ryan Petty countered: "These are nasty, disgusting books that have no place in a school in Florida. Please help me understand what your review process is, because it took me less than five minutes to realize these books violate the statute and they should not be in our schools." Ayres said he removed the books specifically named by Uthmeier and Diaz in their letters in "an abundance of caution." Stephana Ferrell with Florida Freedom to Read, a group that advocates for book access, told board members she was troubled with them only reading one-page excerpts about the books instead of trusting media specialists who read and analyze them in their entirety. Ferrell added that her group is OK with a book going through the objection process "so long that it is considered in its entirety for literary, artistic, scientific and political value." She said the problem is when it's considered only by "standards set by the state." From the archives: Which books are allowed? Varied interpretations of Florida law lead to confusion at schools "This is not about parental rights," Ferrell said. "This is about state control and this idea that our libraries are government speech, that they can regulate and decide what's available based on their own viewpoints." In November, the Florida Department of Education released a list of about 700 books that were "removed or discontinued" from public schools in the 2023-2024 school year. The list is in accordance with state law from 2022, which increased regulation of school library books. The state education board approved a rule to publish an annual list in 2023 to provide "transparency" to families. Both "Call Me By Your Name" and "Jack of Hearts (And Other Parts)" are on the list. These actions also follow Florida's record of having the most book bans in the nation, according to PEN America in November. The free speech group's report at that time had more than 4,500 instances of books being removed from classroom libraries, removed pending a review or restricted based on grade or parental permission. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Hillsborough superintendent in hot water over LGBTQ+ titles in schools
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Social media giants ask judge to block Georgia age verification law
Social media companies have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Georgia law that would create new online age restrictions for minors. A June 3 hearing was held in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia in downtown Atlanta. Jill Nolin/Georgia Recorder A federal judge heard arguments this week on a Georgia law aimed at restricting social media use for minors and requiring Georgians to confirm their age before viewing adult websites. Judge Amy Totenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia announced at the Tuesday hearing that she will determine soon whether to hear more evidence regarding a lawsuit by a group called NetChoice to stop the law. NetChoice represents various internet-based services, including powerful businesses like Google and Meta, as well as smaller companies like online journal site Dreamwidth Studios. On the same day, a Florida judge blocked sections of a similar Florida law. Children under the age of 16 would need parental consent to open social media accounts under the new Georgia law, which is set to go into effect July 1. NetChoice filed a lawsuit in May seeking to prevent that from happening. The companies claim the rules violate young people's First Amendment rights, as well as place unnecessary burdens on social media companies. Attorneys also argued the revised rules strip away some of the flexibility of parents monitoring what online sites their children are accessing. Jeremy Maltz, an attorney representing NetChoice in the lawsuit, argued at Tuesday's court hearing that many people using online websites affected by the Georgia law would consider it an invasion of privacy if they had to use sensitive information to create an account. The plaintiffs argue that adults could face a burden if companies require them to potentially give companies driver licenses, banking or credit card information or use facial recognition software in order to access user-generated online sites. Data breaches and other cyber security threats could be increased by the new age guidelines, Maltz said. 'We know people are going to have to provide some sort of information to access protected speech,' he said. And despite the law exempting educational, public safety, and professional networking platforms, Martz said it would also create new verification hurdles even for innocuous sites such as college football and recipe message boards. 'This bill targets minors at the places where minors go to engage in free speech,' Maltz said. Republican state lawmakers push for Georgia law to require proof of adulthood to view adult websites Georgia lawmakers passed SB 351 in 2024 with bipartisan support. Logan Winkles, a state deputy attorney general, said that social media is designed to drive engagement and promote addiction, and the intent of legislators in passing the law was to protect children from adult bad actors online. 'Everyone agrees that social media poses some risk to children,' Winkles said. NetChoice successfully overturned similar laws in Arkansas and Ohio after arguing they unfairly censored free speech on online platforms. The bill requires social media companies to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of their users, which can be done through methods including banking and credit card accounts, facial and fingerprint recognition software scanning. The Age Verification Providers Association, which supports third-party age verification businesses, reports that about a dozen states have passed laws restricting or requiring parents to consent to minors accessing social media. In several states, including Arkansas, California and Ohio, court orders have been issued to block the provisions of the law. As of May, the age verification group listed Georgia among the 24 states that have passed laws requiring age verification to access online pornography. Opponents say such laws could create privacy concerns and prevent people from accessing constitutionally protected speech. Winkles said at Tuesday's hearing that legislators and Gov. Brian Kemp backed the law to protect more kids and teens from social media sites that lead to higher rates of bullying and mental health problems such as depression and that technology can estimate a person's age without revealing their identity. 'What we know is there are many other ways to verify ID other than showing government ID,' Winkles said. But Totenberg questioned the verification processes. 'It doesn't seem very precise,' Totenberg said. 'It's a highly subjective standard and I'm not sure what it ultimately means.' The law allows parents and guardians to file complaints with the attorney general office if they believe a company isn't complying with age verification. Violations of the law may result in a fine of up to $2,500 per violation. On Tuesday, federal Judge Mark Walker of the northern district of Florida blocked sections of Florida's law banning children under 14 from having social media accounts and requiring parents' approval for teens as old as 16 while expressing concerns about social media's adverse effects on children. Georgia attorneys contend that the state's new social media rules stand up to legal scrutiny and differ from states like Florida, which limited companies' ability to control user-posted content. Right wing officials from several states have expressed concerns about social media companies blocking conservative viewpoints. John Acevedo, an Emory University constitutional law professor, pointed out that when it's pornography, there has been a legal history showing a legitimate interest in protecting children. 'Really, it's not controversial to put an age requirement in, but the controversy is the manner in which the age requirement is implemented,' he said Wednesday. 'Conversely, in social media there's a controversy over whether we should even limit social media at all to any age group.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvard wins reprieve from Trump's foreign student ban
(Bloomberg) — Harvard University won a temporary reprieve from President Donald Trump's ban on its international students entering the US, a legal setback for the administration in its high-profile fight with the school. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars US District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled Thursday that the government can't enforce Trump's proclamation that escalates his feud with the university over foreign students. The judge ruled after Harvard amended a May 23 lawsuit over another US order to stop Harvard from enrolling international students. Burroughs had already blocked that effort. The Boston-based judge granted a temporary restraining order, saying Harvard would face 'immediate and irreparable injury' if the proclamation went into effect. She set a hearing for June 16. In issuing the proclamation Wednesday, Trump said that Harvard's refusal to provide records about international student misconduct poses a national security risk. His executive action blocked Harvard's foreign students and researchers from entering the country. Last month, the administration revoked the school's ability to sponsor their visas. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said Thursday's ruling 'delays justice and seeks to kneecap the President's constitutionally vested powers.' 'It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments; that fact hasn't changed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system, and we expect a higher court to vindicate us in this.' Harvard President Alan Garber had urged the judge to act swiftly. 'While the court considers our request, contingency plans are being developed to ensure that international students and scholars can continue to pursue their work at Harvard this summer and through the coming academic year,' said in a statement just after the university amended its lawsuit in Boston federal court. Trump's proclamation intensifies his standoff with the oldest and richest US university, where foreign students make up 27% of the campus population. Harvard has also sued over the US freezing more than $2.6 billion in federal funding. Both lawsuits claim Trump is illegally retaliating against Harvard, violating the school's free speech rights because it failed to adhere to his wishes. Trump's actions are 'part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students,' lawyers for the university said in the amended lawsuit. Trump's order claims Harvard is 'no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs,' accusing the school of failing to address conduct violations and an increase of 'violent crime rates' on campus. It also criticizes Harvard's researchers for partnering with Chinese colleagues in ways it says could advance Beijing's military modernization effort. The proclamation places a six-month suspension on international students and exchange visitors seeking to do research. It also directs Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review whether the visas of existing foreign nationals at Harvard should be revoked. The US would make an exception for 'any alien whose entry would be in the national interest,' according to the proclamation. The university has said that it has been in regular contact with DHS and supplied the legally required data and additional disciplinary information on international students. Burroughs had already temporarily barred the government from revoking Harvard's participation in its Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which is run by DHS. In Thursday's order, she extended that pause until June 20. Harvard's more than 7,000 students and researchers who hold visas 'have become pawns in the government's escalating campaign of retaliation,' lawyers for the university said in the lawsuit. 'The proclamation is a patent effort to end-run this court's order.' The new ruling by Burroughs increases the chances that the case could end up at the Supreme Court. In 2018, the high court ruled that the president has sweeping authority to restrict entry into the country. That 5-4 ruling upheld Trump's travel ban, which barred entry by people from a group of mostly Muslim countries. 'I Feel Unwelcome' Harvard's undergraduate student body president, Abdullah Shahid Sial, went home to Pakistan after the school year ended. Now, whether he comes back to campus for his junior year is 'totally in the hands of U.S. immigration offices.' 'I think the Trump administration has done a very good job of making international students feel unwelcome,' said Sial, 20. 'I feel unwelcome.' The president has sought to reshape Harvard's policies on a wide range of issues, including admissions and faculty hiring practices, citing the pro-Palestinian protests and incidents of antisemitism that rocked college campuses after Hamas' October 2023 attack on Israel started the war in Gaza. Trump has said he wants to cap Harvard's foreign student enrollment at 15%, revoke its tax-exempt status and cancel its remaining federal contracts. In another action Wednesday against universities, the Trump administration announced that it was asking an agency to revoke the accreditation of Columbia University. The case is Harvard v. US Department of Homeland Security, 25-cv-11472, US District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston). —With assistance from Kate Sullivan. (Updates with judge setting hearing date in third paragraph.) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data