Cali Court Rules On School Case


In a shocking display of censorship and political correctness, a first grader’s drawing has been deemed “unconstitutional” by a California district court.

The innocent drawing, which included the words “Black Lives Matter” with the addition of “any life,” was deemed “inappropriate” and “racist” by the school’s principal.

This outrageous incident all started when a first grader, simply referred to as B.B., drew a picture and gave it to another student, referred to as M.C., who is apparently a student of color.

Despite B.B.’s good intentions of wanting to show solidarity and inclusion after learning about Martin Luther King, M.C.’s mother took offense to the drawing and emailed the school, demanding that the drawing be addressed.

The school’s response was nothing short of violating B.B.’s First Amendment rights. The principal not only called the drawing “racist” but also forced B.B. to publicly apologize to M.C., which she had already done- twice.

B.B. was then punished by being banned from playing during recess for two weeks and has been banned from doing art, which is a therapeutic outlet for her as she suffers from severe ADHD. This is a shocking and unprecedented punishment for a first-grader’s drawing.

But the most outrageous part of this story is the court’s ruling that the drawing was not protected speech because educators are given “substantial deference as to what speech is appropriate.” This is a dangerous precedent that undermines the very foundation of our country’s constitutional rights.

The court cited case law arguing that schools have the right to restrict speech that may “materially interfere” with school activities or “infringe on the rights” of other students. But what about the rights of B.B.?

The student’s mother, Chelsea Boyle, said, “It’s even worse than that because not only was she made to apologize for a totally innocuous drawing, one that I don’t know how you could look at that and see anything but racial tolerance and respect for other races in that picture. But not only was she made to apologize for that, she’s actually been punished on top of it.”

What about her right to express herself and her beliefs? The court and the school have prioritized one student’s perceived discomfort over another’s.

The court also argued that because M.C. is a “particularly vulnerable” student due to her skin color, the school was justified in punishing B.B. for her drawing.

Speaking to RedState, Mrs Boyle said: “My children see color as a color, as a description. I am trying to raise them the way the world should be, not the way it is. That’s how I’m trying to make my personal change. Her best friend is brown — not black, but brown — and she didn’t understand why she didn’t matter, why her friend didn’t matter. She has another friend that is Japanese; she doesn’t understand.”

‘It was something she came up on her own. She just didn’t understand it. It was completely innocent, and that broke my heart,” she continued.

The phrase “Black Lives Matter” has become a liberal mantra that cannot be questioned or challenged. But what about the phrase “any life”? Is it now deemed offensive and unacceptable to care about all lives, regardless of race?