The ongoing debate over gender pronoun policies in educational environments has taken center stage in Ohio, where a federal appeals court has delivered a significant ruling. The court sided against the Olentangy Local School District, one of the state’s largest, in a case that juxtaposed the district’s pronoun policies against the rights of students who adhere to traditional gender beliefs.
In a full session, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Olentangy Local School District’s prohibition on student language deemed offensive regarding gender is unconstitutional. This decision aligns with the arguments presented by Parents Defending Education, a national membership organization that initiated the lawsuit in 2023. The organization claimed that the district’s policies infringe on students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The lawsuit has attracted widespread attention, drawing in conservative policy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, and various religious rights organizations, who opposed the pronoun policy. Meanwhile, LGBTQ+ rights advocates and educational groups have generally supported the district’s stance. The court’s decision emphasized that the district’s approach fell short of demonstrating that such speech would significantly disrupt educational activities or infringe on others’ rights within the school.
“Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive — just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights,” Circuit Judge Eric Murphy wrote for the majority. “The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view.”
Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, in her dissent, uniquely avoided using gendered pronouns, stating that while adapting to new pronouns might be novel for some, it remains feasible. She noted that “social mores around pronouns have shifted over the course of American history, and these shifting mores have not suddenly rendered people unable to speak.”
The immediate impact of this ruling remains uncertain. An Ohio teachers’ union indicated that Olentangy’s policies are similar to those employed by other districts statewide. Initially, a three-judge panel had ruled in favor of the district, asserting that the policies did not force the use of specific pronouns nor suppress alternative viewpoints. However, the latest decision overturns that ruling, directing U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley to issue a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the pronoun policies.
The case focused on district policies that barred language considered insulting or offensive based on gender and required the use of “preferred pronouns” by peers. The district’s electronic device policy, applicable during and outside school hours, also forbade transmitting material deemed disruptive or harassing based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Despite the ruling, Judge Marbley’s order allows the district to continue enforcing its antidiscrimination policy.
Olentangy’s code of conduct reinforces these themes, emphasizing the prohibition of discriminatory language and derogatory remarks based on various characteristics, including gender identity.
