Pierce County school district suspends its controversial free speech policy
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
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘South Park' is having its best ratings in years. Thank Trump and Kristi Noem spoofs
Comedy Central's 'South Park' continues to target President Trump, and viewers appear to be loving it. Ratings for the 27th season of the irreverent and often ribald animated series have surged, according to data from Nielsen and Comedy Central. The second episode, which premiered Aug. 6, scored 6.2 million viewers across the cable network and Paramount+, now the exclusive streaming home for the series, over the first three days. The figure is 49% higher than the first three days for the season premiere, which debuted on July 23. The second episode scored 1.56 million viewers on Comedy Central, making it the highest rated episode since 2018, with nearly all of them in the 18 to 49 age group coveted by advertisers. The new season of 'South Park' launched amid the tensions between Comedy Central's parent Paramount and the Trump White House. It also arrived after the show's co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone scored a massive $1.5-billion five-year deal with Paramount for the streaming rights, which previously belonged to HBO Max. Paramount paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit over Trump's claim that '60 Minutes' deceptively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris to aid her in the 2024 Election. First Amendment experts said the suit had no merit. But the settlement was seen as necessary for Skydance Media to get federal regulatory approval of its $8-billion acquisition of Paramount, which closed on Aug. 7. 'Late Show' host Stephen Colbert joked that the settlement was a bribe. Days later he was told by CBS that his program was being canceled at the end of the 2025-26 season due to financial losses. But 'South Park' has not held anything back in its comedic takes on Trump, presenting him naked and in bed with the devil. Trump's boast that Paramount is giving him $20 million in public service announcements as part of the '60 Minutes' settlement was also lampooned. (The company has not confirmed that such a deal was made for free ad time). The second episode showed the president dressed in a white 'Fantasy Island'-style suit with Vice President J.D. Vance as his diminutive sidekick. U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was portrayed with a melting face and a trigger-happy response to puppy dogs. Both were were running gags throughout the espisode. 'South Park' regular Cartman became a conservative podcaster in the second episode and was seen sporting a hairstyle similar to that of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Parker and Stone will take a break this week as Comedy Central will air the very first 'South Park' episode — 1997's 'Cartman Gets an Anal Probe' — on Wednesday as part of a marathon for the series.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here's how The News Tribune decides when to do candidate endorsements
Let me start by saying, I should have published this column over a month ago. Journalists hate missing deadlines, so it pains me to realize this information is overdue. No, I'm not telling you who The News Tribune editorial board is endorsing in the 2025 Tacoma mayoral race. But we've heard from quite a few Tacomans asking where that endorsement was during the primary election. So as Opinion Editor, I'm here to explain what our plan is, and to promise to make our process more clear going forward. The short version is this: this newspaper's editorial board will issue an endorsement for the 2025 mayoral race in October, on or before the day you receive your general election ballot in the mail. While the election results aren't certified yet, the current frontrunners from the primary election are Anders Ibsen and John Hines. In all likelihood, the board will be choosing between those two candidates. And here's the why. The editorial board makes decisions each year about which races to offer endorsements for in the primary election, and which to leave for the general. If we've already endorsed a candidate in the primary, we won't revisit that race for the general election. There are simply too many races to consider in one go. The editorial board is currently made up of two News Tribune employees and three community volunteers, and we have to use our time wisely. That requires a judgment call on when to endorse in a given race. Sometimes it's easy to spot when the editorial board should endorse in a primary or a general election. Some races skip the primary, such as the Tacoma City Council District 2 race, which only has two candidates. And some have a more manageable number of candidates in the primary, allowing the board to have a meaningful conversation on each candidate's stances. Others present more of a conundrum. The board this year decided to save the Tacoma mayoral race endorsement for the general election. There were pros and cons for both options, and we understand that many voters would have liked some guidance when choosing among six candidates for an open seat in the mayor's office. To arrive at a choice in October, the editorial board will pose questions to both mayoral candidates. We hope that diving deeper with two candidates will offer more insight into their visions for the city's government, and the differences between them. That's harder to get at in a six-person panel interview. There's still value in vetting the primary candidates. With this in mind, the editorial board did go through the endorsement process with all six candidates running for the at-large Tacoma City Council Pos. 6. What's more, our news team covered mayoral candidate forums and reported on the race during the primary campaign season. Going forward, the editorial board will aim to be transparent about what readers can expect leading up to primaries and general elections.
USA Today
11 hours ago
- USA Today
LA banned the N and C words from council meetings. Does the First Amendment allow that?
The council called it a 'narrowly focused rule' to curb ongoing disruptions during its meetings. But some First Amendment groups are concerned it will put the city on a slippery slope. As deadly wildfires raged across Southern California in January, a Los Angeles city official lamented to the city council and others how they were forced to listen to hateful, vulgar language from some members of the public. He thanked the audience for their patience in listening to one man's tirade in which he yelled "burn, Palisades, burn!" and used the N-word to describe council members. It was far from an isolated incident. A small group of people have repeatedly showed up to comment at the council meetings, spewing the N-word and C-word while ranting about everything from the city's homeless crisis to mask-wearing and the 2028 Olympics. Council members finally had enough. In late July, they passed a motion banning the public from using those two words during council meetings, despite warnings from First Amendment groups that the move could put the city on a slippery slope toward unconstitutional censorship. Already, the ban is getting put to the test. Just two days after the council passed the new rule, a man used the N-word three times in less than 10 seconds during his three minutes of speaking time. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson asked for the clerk to pause his time. 'Speaker, you have used the N-word, which is a violation of Council Rule 7,' Harris-Dawson said. 'This is your only warning that this word and any of its variations described in Council Rule 7 may not be used again in this council meeting, any future council meeting or future council committee meetings.' If the man continued to use the term, Harris-Dawson said, he would risk forfeiting the rest of his speaking time and being removed from the meeting. The council's motion calls the terms the 'most frequently used offensive and injurious epithets' at city council meetings. It said such words are 'inherently harmful,' citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The ruling said some terms 'by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.' Such 'fighting words,' the court found, are not protected by the First Amendment. That's the argument city officials are making to justify the ban. These aren't ordinary words, city officials say. Under the new rule, a speaker who uses the term will first receive a verbal warning. If they use it again, the presiding officer will again tell them they cannot use such language and indicate that the need to reissue the warning has disrupted the meeting, therefore allowing the council to cut off the speaker. The speaker may also be removed from the proceedings and banned from future meetings, according to the motion. It specifies that violations of the rule would not invoke criminal or financial penalties. 'The cost is too high,' First Amendment group says Free speech groups have raised concerns about the rule and its First Amendment implications. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), urged the council not to adopt the measure, saying in an April 29 letter the rule would 'implement an unconstitutional solution when better alternatives that do not infringe on the speech rights of your constituents are available.' Likewise, the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization that focuses on First Amendment issues in California, wrote a similarly worded letter to the council raising concerns. The group said it "understands and sympathizes" with the city over the words and their impact on the community. Still, the group said the rule violates the First Amendment and opens the city up to lawsuits. "As with other ill-fated attempts to silence offensive speech, that result would amplify the objectionable message and allow those who utter it to claim victory as defenders of free speech," the group wrote. "Also, the first victim of censorship is rarely the last, and attempts at restricting offensive speech often lead to censorship of those they are intended to protect." But the council's motion, which was presented in March and passed on July 30, argued that action was necessary because the terms had been used and disrupted the meetings 'on many occasions.' The sergeants-at-arms 'prevented fights that were on the cusp of breaking out' on at least two occasions, the motion said. It acknowledged that the council 'faces competing duties' in being obligated to hear from the public and give them opportunities to exercise their First Amendment rights while still protecting council members and others in attendance at the meetings. 'It is understandable, given the rough and tumble of city council hearings why governments would want rules of decorum,' said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 'The problem is, the cost is too high, and it gives them too much authority to suppress and censor opposing views.' But a spokesperson for Harris-Dawson said the measure was not meant to suppress free speech. 'This is not a ban on offensive speech in general, nor does it limit the public's right to criticize, protest, or speak passionately,' the spokesperson said. 'Instead, it draws a line at language that, by consistent and documented use, has disrupted the Council's ability to conduct public business and discouraged public participation.' Los Angeles City Council meetings compared to 'Jerry Springer' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson described the ban as a 'narrowly focused rule' meant to prevent disruptions and maintain a civil environment. 'These slurs are not being restricted because of the viewpoints they may express, but because they have repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others,' the spokesperson said. Right before council meeting broadcasts begin, a disclaimer warns that the 'following content may contain offensive language not suitable for some audiences' and that 'viewer discretion is advised.' 'It's almost like you're about to watch an episode of 'Jerry Springer,'' said Stephanie Jablonsky, FIRE's senior program counsel for public advocacy. During the council's July 30 meeting, a member of the public repeatedly used both terms and said the council could make him a 'millionaire' after he sues on free speech grounds. The council voted in 2014 to settle a free speech lawsuit brought by a man who was kicked out of a city commission meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and shirt emblazoned with the N-word. Another man used the N-word several times in condemning the rule, along with a call to 'send the Jews back to Israel' and a reference to President Donald Trump's administration being 'the only America of constitutional betterment.' Kathy Schreiner, the president of the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, which urged the city council to pass the measure, said her group's meetings have also been disrupted by such language. Schreiner said she has "frequently been called the C-word" since starting her position in December 2022. The council's former president, Michael Browning, was also 'frequently' called the N-word in meetings throughout his two-year tenure, she wrote. 'The (Van Nuys Neighborhood Council) has an unusually small attendance from the public at our meetings, and we know that one major reason is how difficult it is to sit through meetings where so many vulgar and nasty public comments are made,' Schreiner said. She requested the city council 'explore whether there is some way you could help prohibit the use of these epithets at all Neighborhood Council Board and Committee meetings.' The Palms Neighborhood Council also asked for the city council to pass the ban and 'apply the same changes to Neighborhood Council meetings.' Both city and neighborhood council meetings attract people who are 'able to disrupt discussions for sport' using 'vile language and pointless hate speech,' the statement read. 'Transparency in government is crucial, and stakeholders must be allowed to criticize the work of government without fear of reprisal,' the statement went on to say. 'But this process is actually degraded and undermined when individuals with no productive aims destroy the public dialogue and engagement with hate speech targeted only at blowing up the process.' City says rule about preserving access, 'not censoring ideas' But the First Amendment 'exists for this exact reason,' Jablonsky said. The remedy, in her view, is to 'punish the disruption' and not the speaker. Though certain terms may be offensive and harmful to many people, Jablonsky said it's vital to resist any efforts to ban words. 'If we don't, we are setting a dangerous precedent for government to regulate what we say,' she said. 'Any inch they are given will absolutely get used.' Wizner agreed, saying the 'only speech that needs constitutional protection is speech that deeply offends." The ACLU's 2024 article, 'Defending Speech We Hate,' noted that the organization has defended the free speech rights of numerous groups it strongly disagrees with – among them neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the National Rifle Association. 'Our view is if the First Amendment doesn't protect the NRA in New York, it doesn't protect the ACLU in Texas,' Wizner said. But the council has maintained that its actions are both legal and necessary to address terms that have 'repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others' at meetings. 'Just like courtrooms and school board meetings, Council Chambers are limited public forums where reasonable time, place, and manner rules apply,' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson said. 'This motion is about preserving access and safety for everyone, not censoring ideas, but safeguarding the ability of all residents to speak and be heard without intimidation or verbal abuse.' BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
