Ohio school district blocked from enforcing pronouns policies by federal appeals court – Christian Post

Judicial Ruling on School Pronoun Policies: An Analysis of Sustainable Development Goal Implications

1.0 Executive Summary

A recent ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily barred an Ohio school district from enforcing policies compelling the use of preferred pronouns. This report analyzes the case and its judgment through the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting the inherent tensions between ensuring inclusive education (SDG 4), promoting equality (SDG 5, SDG 10), and upholding justice and fundamental freedoms (SDG 16).

• Case: Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education.
• Outcome: A preliminary injunction was granted against the school district’s policies, citing likely success on First Amendment free speech grounds.
• Core Conflict: The legal challenge balances the district’s objective to create a non-discriminatory and safe educational environment against students’ constitutional rights to freedom of expression.
• SDG Relevance: The case directly impacts the implementation of policies aimed at achieving Quality Education (SDG 4), Gender Equality (SDG 5), Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10), and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16).

2.0 Background of the Litigation

The lawsuit, initiated in 2023, challenged several policies within the Olentangy Local School District. The plaintiffs argued that these policies unconstitutionally compelled speech and regulated student expression in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

1. Policy 5517: Enforces prohibitions against discriminatory harassment based on gender identity, defining harassment as conduct that interferes with a student’s educational performance or disrupts school operations.
2. Policy 5136: Prohibits the use of personal communication devices to create an impression of being threatened, humiliated, harassed, or embarrassed.
3. Code of Conduct: Prohibits harassment, bullying, and the use of “discriminatory language,” which includes derogatory comments related to gender identity.

3.0 Judicial Findings and Rationale

The en banc decision by the 6th Circuit overturned previous lower court rulings, focusing on established legal precedent regarding student speech.

• Majority Opinion: Authored by Judge Eric Murphy, the opinion centered on the precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines. It concluded that the school district’s policy raised serious free-speech concerns by prohibiting speech on a matter of public concern (biological pronouns) while compelling other speech (preferred pronouns). The court distinguished the use of biological pronouns from “abusive invective,” stating the plaintiffs’ intent was to express a viewpoint, not to ridicule.
• Dissenting Opinion: Authored by Judge Jane Stranch, the dissent argued that the policy was necessary to protect the mental health of transgender students and met the Tinker standard for reasonably forecasting a substantial disruption or violation of others’ rights. The dissent expressed concern that the majority’s new approach would weaken schools’ ability to protect vulnerable students.

4.0 Analysis through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

4.1 SDG 4: Quality Education

The case directly engages with targets for SDG 4, which calls for inclusive and equitable quality education.

• Target 4.a: The school district’s policies were designed to “provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all,” in direct alignment with this target. The aim was to protect transgender and nonbinary students from harassment to ensure their full participation in education.
• Target 4.7: The conflict illustrates a challenge in promoting “human rights, gender equality…and appreciation of cultural diversity.” The court’s ruling prioritizes one human right (freedom of expression) over policies designed to ensure an inclusive environment, demonstrating the complexity of implementing this target within established legal frameworks.

4.2 SDG 5 (Gender Equality) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The core of the dispute relates to non-discrimination and the protection of marginalized groups.

• Target 5.1 & 10.3: The school’s anti-harassment policy is a direct attempt to “end all forms of discrimination” and “eliminate discriminatory…policies and practices” based on gender identity. Such policies are crucial for achieving gender equality and reducing inequalities for vulnerable populations.
• Target 10.2: The litigation questions the means by which institutions can “empower and promote the social…inclusion of all, irrespective of…status.” The court’s intervention suggests that while the goal of inclusion is valid, its implementation cannot infringe upon other constitutionally protected rights.

4.3 SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The ruling is a clear example of the role of judicial institutions in mediating societal conflicts over rights and policies.

• Target 16.3: The case demonstrates the principle of “equal access to justice for all,” as a group successfully challenged a public institution’s policy through the legal system.
• Target 16.b: The conflict is a textbook example of the challenge in “promot[ing] and enforc[ing] non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The court found that the district’s non-discriminatory policy, as applied, potentially violated fundamental freedoms, another key component of SDG 16. The ruling highlights the need for policies to be carefully crafted to withstand legal scrutiny and balance competing rights.

5.0 National Context and Conclusion

The Olentangy case is part of a broader national trend involving conflicts over pronoun policies in educational settings. Similar cases have emerged in states such as Wisconsin, Virginia, and Kansas, while other states, including Idaho, Tennessee, and Wyoming, have enacted legislation to protect individuals who decline to use preferred pronouns. This judicial decision underscores the significant challenge facing public institutions as they strive to create inclusive environments in line with SDGs 4, 5, and 10, while navigating the robust legal protections for individual freedoms that are central to SDG 16. The outcome suggests that policies aimed at fostering inclusion must be carefully balanced to avoid compelling speech and infringing upon established constitutional rights.

1. SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article connects to this goal through the discussion of protecting the mental health of transgender students, which is cited as a reason for the school’s pronoun policy.
• SDG 4: Quality Education: The entire context is an educational setting. The goal is relevant as the debate centers on creating a safe, inclusive, and non-violent learning environment for all students, which is a prerequisite for quality education.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: This goal is central to the article, as the conflict revolves around policies related to gender identity, non-discrimination, and the rights of transgender and nonbinary individuals within the school system.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article is fundamentally about the justice system and institutional policies. It details a legal battle involving a federal appeals court, school district policies, and the interpretation of constitutional rights (First Amendment), highlighting the role of strong institutions in mediating rights and enforcing non-discriminatory laws.

2. Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.4: “By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.”
     
     Explanation: The article directly references this target when it quotes Judge Jane Stranch’s dissenting opinion, where she “argued that such a policy was necessary to protect the mental health of trans-identified students.” This shows the school’s policy was framed as a measure to promote mental health and well-being.

2. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.”
     
     Explanation: The school district’s policies are designed to create what it considers a safe and inclusive environment. Policy 5517 defines harassment as conduct that has “the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance, opportunities, or benefits” or “substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school.” This directly relates to providing a safe and effective learning environment.

3. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.”
     
     Explanation: While the target text specifies “women and girls,” its application within the SDG framework is broadly understood to include ending discrimination based on gender identity. The article’s focus on policies against “discriminatory harassment based on gender identity” and prohibiting “discriminatory language” that is “derogatory towards an individual or group based on gender identity” directly aligns with the goal of ending gender-based discrimination.
   • Target 5.c: “Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality…”
     
     Explanation: The Olentangy Local School District’s Policy 5517 and its Code of Conduct are examples of local-level policies adopted to promote equality for transgender and nonbinary students. The entire court case is a debate over the strengthening and enforceability of these policies.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”
     
     Explanation: The article describes the entire legal process, from a district court ruling to a three-judge panel and finally an en banc ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This process, involving groups like Defending Education and Alliance Defending Freedom, exemplifies parties using the legal system to seek justice and clarify the rule of law regarding free speech and anti-harassment policies.
   • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.”
     
     Explanation: The school district’s anti-harassment policies (Policy 5517 and the Code of Conduct) are the non-discriminatory policies at the center of the dispute. The litigation is a direct examination of how such policies are enforced and whether that enforcement conflicts with other constitutional rights, which is a core aspect of this target.

3. Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Indicator (Implied): Prevalence of bullying and harassment in schools.
     
     Explanation: The article implies this indicator through its extensive discussion of the school’s anti-harassment and anti-bullying policies. Policy 5517 aims to prohibit “discriminatory harassment,” and the Code of Conduct prohibits “harassment” or “bullying.” The existence and enforcement of these policies suggest that the incidence of such behavior is a key metric for measuring a safe learning environment.

2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Indicator (Implied from 5.1.1): Existence of legal frameworks and policies to promote and enforce non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly details the legal frameworks in question: the school district’s Policy 5517, Policy 5136, and its Code of Conduct. It also mentions that several states, including Idaho, Tennessee, and Wyoming, have “passed laws protecting teachers from having to use trans-identified students’ preferred pronouns.” The presence, content, and legal challenges to these policies and laws serve as a direct indicator of the status of legal frameworks concerning gender identity.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Indicator (Implied from 16.b.1): Reports of discrimination or harassment based on gender identity.
     
     Explanation: The school district’s policies are a response to the potential for harassment and discrimination. The policy defines harassment as “any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture… or written, verbal or physical conduct directed against a student.” The need for such a policy implies that the number of students reporting such experiences is a relevant measure of progress towards a non-discriminatory environment.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: christianpost.com