Christian McGhee, 16, has filed a federal lawsuit through his parents, claiming his North Carolina school violated his freedom of speech and deprived him of due process for suspending him after he said “illegal aliens.”
“I have raised our son to reject racism in all its forms, but it is the school, not Christian, that injected race into this incident. It appears that this administration would rather destroy its own reputation and the reputation of my son rather than admit they made a mistake,” said Leah McGhee, Christian’s mother.
The suit names the Davidson County Board of Education and Eric Anderson, Central Davidson High School’s assistant principal, as the defendants.
The Liberty Justice Center is representing McGhee.
An English teacher’s vocabulary assignment included the word “aliens.” McGhee asked the teacher if the word “referred to ‘space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards.'”
A student said he would “kick [McGhee’s] ass. The teacher contacted Anderson, the assistant principal.
Anderson brought in McGhee and the student who complained. The student, identified as R., told Anderson (my emphasis) “that he was not offended.” He was JOKING.
That wasn’t good enough for Anderson:
When R. said that he was not offended, Mr. Anderson disagreed and told R. that C.M.’s words “were a big deal,” effectively telling R. that he should have been offended.Then Anderson spoke to C.M. and said that R. was “upset,” “crying,” and “offended.” C.M. did not find these assertions believable because he could see that R. was not upset. But C.M. listened to Assistant Principal Anderson and told his side of the story. Mr. Anderson would later recall telling C.M. that it would have been more “respectful” for C.M. to phrase his question by referring to “those people” who “need a green card.”
It turns out that R. and McGhee are good friends. He said he didn’t cry when he met with Anderson. He also didn’t feel upset or offended.
R. then said, “’If anyone is racist, it is [Mr. Anderson] since he asked me why my Spanish grade is so low’”—an apparent reference to R.’s ethnicity.”
The staff agreed that “illegal aliens” offend Hispanic students.
The high school gave McGhee a three-day suspension. The school gave R. a “brief in-school suspension” for his joke response.
The Liberty Justice Center claims McGhee faced “ostracism, bullying, and threats” after his suspension. His parents pulled him from school so he could finish the term through homeschooling.
“Even though Christian asked a factual, non-threatening question—about a word the class was discussing—the school board branded him with false accusations of racism,” said Buck Dougherty, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center. “The school has not only violated his constitutional right to free speech, but also his right to due process and his right to access education, a guaranteed right under North Carolina law. We are proud to stand beside Christian and his family in challenging this egregious violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
The lawsuit alleges the high school “engaged in viewpoint discrimination” when it relied on its viewpoint that “illegal aliens” show racial discrimination.
The school never punished those who allegedly bullied McGhee:
The viewpoint discrimination is evident from the School’s decision to not harshly punish another student who made a comment threatening violence against C.M.—a comment that, on its face, is far more disruptive to the learning environment. It is further evidenced from a School administrator’s assertion that harsh punishment was necessary to avoid being “unfair” to students who received the same punishment “for saying the N word”—a preposterous comparison.
At Reason, Billy Binion said the judges might use the ruling from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Supreme Court sided with the students wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.
Justice Abe argued, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Abe also wrote:
The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.In the present case, the District Court made no such finding, and our independent examination of the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students. Even an official memorandum prepared after the suspension that listed the reasons for the ban on wearing the armbands made no reference to the anticipation of such disruption.
However, schools can “discourage and punish ‘actually or potentially disruptive conduct.'”
“Potentially” makes me squirm as much as “reasonable” does in laws and rulings. The vague and limited scope allows for an interpretation that is too broad.
I hope this kid wins.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY