Walkout Censor: Proposed statewide sanctions on school protests cannot pass

In history and civics classes across the state, we are taught that an indispensable shield against unjust systems is our voices. We study cases like Brown v. Board — where segregation in Topeka was declared unconstitutional —and learn that student dissent originating from our very own state capital can push the nation’s morals forward.

In five walkouts in the district and eleven in the county over the past three months, students have exercised this power by protesting ramped-up federal immigration enforcement, which has caused eight deaths since January. On Feb. 17 at SM East, the air was filled by hundreds of student-made signs advocating for broader change — one read, “Everyone deserves to be a part of the American Dream!”

Yet, currently halfway through the legislature is an amendment to a budget bill that aims to divorce the student population from the principles of protest they learn in class. Modifications to Senate Bill 315 — proposed two weeks after SM East’s walkout — inhibit school walkouts statewide by mandating parental permission and creating fines for districts that allow them.

The amendment passed through the Senate and is sitting in a House committee, where the poorly worded provision should be rejected. With vague, illogical and unconstitutional language, the legislation beats down on developing student beliefs and forces districts to swing the stick.

Districts would be fined if attendance policies weren’t enforced, if staff members enabled a walkout or if students — including adult seniors — failed to obtain parental permission. The Kansas Board of Education would review and enforce complaints of teacher complicity. 

Each incident would result in sanctions equal to the superintendent’s yearly base salary. In SMSD, this exceeds $250,000.

The very premise of deterring student protest is clearly unconstitutional. In the 1969 Supreme Court ruling Tinker v. Des Moines, the court ruled that students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This landmark case is taught in every senior government class.

Senators justified the amendment by arguing that protests interrupt class time. There is indeed a Supreme Court precedent that allows schools to punish learning disruptions, like in Morse vs. Frederick, when a student wearing a T-shirt promoting drug use was punished.

But there’s a difference between obscene shirts and political protest. Considering the political timing and that the 21-19 vote was entirely pushed across by one party, it’s clear the amendment was not created to protect class time. It’s retaliation.

The punishments of the amendment are as unreasonable as its justification. The Kansas Board of Education would need to review and rule on hundreds of potential cases, expanding their workload to witch hunts. In the process, they’d need to be able to prove whether a staff member’s actions qualified as “enablement.”

Even if violations could be sorted through, the punishments are poorly designed. A single staff member accused of allowing protests could provoke sanctions on an entire district. For large districts like SMSD with $200 million budgets, the deterrent is tiny. For smaller districts like USD487 in Harrington, the $100k penalty set at the superintendent’s salary would comprise two percent of its entire budget — and that’s per incident.

This one-size-fits-all deterrent is insubstantial for large districts, cruel for small ones and invisible to private schools that the amendment neglects.

But even if we ignore the amendment’s illegality, partisan motivation, poor language, infeasibility and blind severity — why should state legislators want to infringe upon the freedom of expression of students at all?

As educators seek to inform students of their agency and power, the state cannot tell them when and where they should demonstrate. School walkouts not only bolster current activism but also develop the activists, and a politically active generation benefits the community and state.

Schools are places where students learn of their potential to change the world. Emerging voices gain just as much practicing activism as they do studying it in the classroom, and the breadth of their expression should never be infringed upon by our government. If the state House of Representatives truly wishes to protect the liberty of student speech, it must fail this measure.