When do a school district’s employment decisions violate Title VII’s prohibition against racial discrimination in employment? Where is the line between interpersonal conflict and impermissible retaliation? What happens when local politics run a muck in a school district? In this episode, we unpack a rather complex case with a ton of history to it. While this is primarily a case about a principal whose contract was not renewed and who claimed it was for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons, there’s a lot more to it. You may remember some news from about 15 years ago about a Mexican American Studies program that was banned in Tucson, Arizona. Well, years after that controversy, the contract of one of the educators who was involved in its creation was not renewed by a school board that had some members who were publicly opposed to the program. We head west to Arizona to talk about the case of Romero v Tucson Unified School District. We also discuss a recent New Jersey law that bans the banning of books. That's right; it's a book ban ban!

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear!⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: Employment, Title VII, Race or National Origin Discrimination, Retaliation, School Boards, Contract Non-renewals, Ethnic Studies, Book Bans, Curricular Wars

What does the Constitution say about how schools should navigate situations where a student and their parents disagree about the student’s gender identity? How can schools promote the interests of LGBTQ students while also respecting parental rights? This is a tricky subject, and it often puts schools in a sticky situation. Which is why we’re doing this podcast, right? To help educators un-stick themselves as much as possible. Today's case illustrates a constantly changing and hotly debated legal landscape: the balance of parental rights, the rights and interests of LGBTQ students, and the authority of schools to promote what they may think is "in the best interests of the student." Trying to balance these complex issues often puts schools between a rock and a hard place. Today, we’re diving into Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, a case involving a parental challenge to a support plan that the school created for their transgender child. We also discuss an update to a lawsuit challenging Iowa's recent curricular gag order.

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: LGBTQ Students' Rights, Parental Rights, Transgender Students, Support Plans, Fourteenth Amendment, Substantive Due Process, Qualified Immunity, Curriculum, First Amendment

Do students have First Amendment rights to avoid potentially controversial school assignments and activities? When does a school assignment cross the line between legitimate educational activity and being inappropriate? Today’s case is about a Las Vegas high school drama teacher who “rolled the dice” and asked students to write a monologue and have it performed in front of the class. But here's the twist, the teacher asked students to randomly pick another student’s monologue to perform, and as it turned out, one of those monologues was sexually explicit. Feeling compelled to complete the required activity, one student read that monologue, and things “flopped” from there. This is the 2024 case of Evans v Hawes. At the heart of this case is the question of whether or not students have a First Amendment right to avoid classroom activities based on their disagreement with the content. It's a fascinating case with a significant legal question. It sounds perfect for a Chalk & Gavel episode! We also discuss another recent selective admissions case out of Boston that is challenging a school's pursuit of diversity in its admissions process.

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: First Amendment, Free Speech, Compelled Speech, School Assignments, Assault and Battery, Drama, Parents, School Board Meetings, Limited Public Forum, Selective Admissions, Diversity, Race Discrimination