Central Bucks’ New Ban on Pride Flags
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/XD62DBLNVJFC3BJO4S2ZDFDRIQ.jpg)
Photo Source
Whether it is June or not, LGBTQ+ pride radiates throughout school districts across the state, but one school district has put an end to pride and LGBTQ+ representation altogether. LGBTQ+ representation—let’s talk about it.
Central Bucks School District, located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, recently passed a new policy that has sparked controversy and outrage throughout the county, with the loudest protestors being members of the LGBTQ+ community. On January 10, 2023, the Central Bucks School Board passed in a 6-3 vote Policy 321 or, “the Partisan, Political, or Social Policy Advocacy Activities” policy. With this new policy enacted, teachers are now banned to display any flag, banner, poster, sign, sticker, pin, button, insignia, paraphernalia, photos, or anything else similar (exempting the American flag or Pennsylvanian flag). It’s true, the policy is ambiguous, but many teachers have steered clear of the risk of termination by avoiding topics of sexual orientation and gender identity altogether.
While the policy never explicitly mentions LGBTQ+, many members of the community remain threatened and infuriated. According to President Dana Hunter and Vice President Leigh Vlasblom, Policy 321 protects against indoctrination with neutrality. In other words, Hunter and Vlasblom believe that a policy like Policy 321 will foster greater education by minimizing distractions and political symbols, such as the LGBTQ+ flag. As one can imagine, this did not sit well with the LGBTQ+ community. In November, 7 LGBTQ+ students filed a federal Title IX complaint through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleging that Central Bucks has created a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students. Even the nonprofit legal group, Education Law Center, wrote in an October letter that Policy 321 was “overboard, discriminatory and is plainly intended to chill educators’ support for LGBTQ+ students” (Education Law Center).
In response to these suits, Central Bucks hired lawyers Bill McSwain and Michael Rinaldi to represent Central Bucks School District. To the disheartenment of many LGBTQ+ students, Central Bucks won, leaving students with nothing more than a prideless classroom. Eventually, an updated Policy section of Policy 321 was released, explaining that “this policy is not a prohibition on topics of speech. Rather, it is designed to promote education instead of indoctrination or endorsement of partisan, political, or social policy matters.” And while Vlasblom continues to assert that Policy 321 is “not about a policy about pride flags,” parents and students are concerned and outraged. Since the policy has been passed, many protests have ensued. “I’m not surprised, but very disheartened, very upset,” said a Central Bucks woman. “It’s the direction the board has been going and we expected it, but we’re going to keep fighting.”
Unfortunately, Policy 321 is not quarantined to Central Bucks School District. Neighboring districts like Pennridge have also adopted this policy, thus making this a county-wide issue. As a local of Montgomery County (Bucks County neighboring county), I am deeply saddened to hear about the passage of Policy 321. As someone with best friends and a brother in the LGBTQ+ community, I am appalled and disgusted over Central Bucks and their newest policy. Whether the policy was intended to be anti-LGBTQ+ or not, it is still wrong to ban displays of support and pride for such a poorly argued reason. Furthermore, I think it is wrong to closet (no pun intended) teachers and threaten them with termination if they want to display any pride signs, flags, or posters. While I was never a big fan of my school district, I am very grateful that it was a district that was very loving and supportive toward the LGBTQ+ community, and I only hope that Central Bucks can reciprocate that same love and support toward their students.
But what do YOU think? Do you think that this is a protest worth having, or is Policy 321 justified? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Until next time! Keep researching, advocating, and most of all, talking!
Charlie Colvin
First of all, before I get into the actual comment I want to be clear that I do approve of and support the LGBTQ+ community and have no personal issue against them, nor do I inherently have any issue with the pride flag and its uses. With that said, I have to play the devils advocate here and suggest the following scenario: A teacher born and raised in Alabama who has now gotten a job in this school district wishes to display the confederate flag in their classroom, claiming it represents their heritage (personally I don’t really buy this argument since the confederacy didn’t exist for more than a few years, but lets allow it for the sake of discussion). Couldn’t it be argued that in the absence of this rule, the teacher would technically be allowed to display this flag which might cause many students to feel uncomfortable? Could the same not be said for some sort of very pro-religious symbolism in the classroom? Or a student of Ukrainian heritage being disturbed by the teachers collection of Russian flags? Most people would agree that all of these are potentially distracting if not disturbing to the students, so it seems to me that the only way to avoid this situation is to place a blanket ban over any of these types of displays. Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t seem like its necessarily “overboard” or “targeted” for a school to want to simply remain as neutral as possible on these issues.
rmp6025
First, I really liked how you described the scenario and the topic thoroughly! I was able to effectively follow your story and the debate around this topic. Furthermore, I find it surprising that a high school would care so deeply about such policies that they not only voted to ban representation but defended it in court. In addition, from what I can tell, the outrage and backlash the school district received surrounding the matter was severe. Consequently, I predict that there will be further implications such as teacher strikes, and even parents pulling their children out of this school district. I would be interested to know any cases that you know of where this did occur.
lek5428
Wow– I heard about these kinds of bans in the south, and in Berks, where I’m from, but I never thought that other local schools could be experiencing the same thing! Thank you for giving this conflict a voice. Although it is hard to be truly neutral on these kinds of things without trampling on human rights, you do a good job of reporting the ostensible motivations of the school board and dissecting the community reaction. Nice work.
nal5435
I’m surprised I haven’t heard of this before now. This is definitely an interesting topic though as the policy does not seem targeted, as it bans all “distractions”, but it’s hard to tell. I can definitely see a reason to get rid of distractions in a learning environment, but to me this feels too drastic. Students aren’t necessarily walking into class everyday with a pride flag or any other flag trying to be a distraction, but taking away the option is definitely an issue. It’s a very difficult situation because of the argument that it’s not restricting speech because flags and other paraphernalia are merely objects, but I do feel this was very unnecessary.