Celia Kaul is an 8th grader at JT Williams Secondary Montessori. She had three minutes at the public comment podium Tuesday night, and she spent them telling the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education that its new student free speech policy would do the opposite of what it promised.
The board voted 7-2 to adopt it anyway. Board members Charlitta Hatch and Liz Monterrey Duvall voted against it.
What the policy actually does
Policy S-SFRS is the district's first formal student free speech policy. It was developed in the wake of a year that gave CMS administrators more than the usual number of headaches over what students are allowed to say.
Last fall, a student at Ardrey Kell High School painted "Live Like Kirk" on the school's spirit rock after the Charlie Kirk assassination, along with a Bible verse. CMS painted over it and called it vandalism. The student's family filed a federal lawsuit. Around the same time, students at multiple schools staged protests over Border Patrol activity in Charlotte.
Board Vice Chair Dee Rankin, who chairs the Policy Committee and brought the policy forward, said it was not about any single event. "You also have things like parking spaces that are painted for seniors at schools, you have benches that are dedicated," Rankin told WFAE. "Certain things that may not have reached the news, but there are so many different incidents across the district that sparked this concept."
The policy protects students from discipline based on speech, including political and religious expression, with three categories of exceptions. Speech is not protected if it causes a "substantial disruption" to instruction, if it is vulgar or promotes drug use, or if it infringes on other students' rights.
The policy also reaches beyond campus. It covers off-campus speech when that speech involves threats, bullying, or harassment of other students. For anything else said off campus or online, the policy directs principals to consult with the district's Office of Legal Compliance and Advocacy before taking action, noting that the legal doctrines governing off-campus speech are "still emerging."
What the student argued
Kaul's concern was Section 4A: the "substantial disruption" standard.
That phrase comes from a 1969 Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines, which held that schools could not punish students for political expression unless it materially disrupted school operations. The policy adopts that standard. Kaul argued it gives administrators too much room to decide what counts as disruptive.
"Rephrasing the document, providing more details, or revisiting the policy with student voices in mind by asking them to weigh in on individual concerns regarding freedom of speech will help ensure student rights are protected throughout CMS," she said.
She went further: "This policy is showing students that authority can and will be used with impunity against them."
The policy itself acknowledges the concern. It states that "speech cannot be restricted for a vague and unsupported fear of disruption, nor a mere desire to avoid discomfort of an unpopular view."
Kaul's argument was that a principle written into a policy does not bind the administrator holding it.
The vote
Hatch and Duvall voted against the policy. No board member offered extended remarks on the dissent before the vote was taken.
What's next
The policy directs each school principal to develop guidelines for designated areas of student expression, including spirit rocks, murals, student parking spaces, and benches.
Kaul made her argument. The board heard it and voted. Now it falls to the principals.