The Capistrano Unified School District has had a multitude of issues over the past few years that have been documented here, here, and here. Now, they are in the crosshairs for a 2021 incident where they restricted a young girl's free speech rights and publicly shamed and punished her (without her mother's knowledge or consent) for a drawing. Chelsea Boyle, the girl's mother, sought redress first from the school district, and then through the courts in a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation. A district court deemed that the girl's drawing could not be considered protected speech. Now, the matter has landed in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. 

Why does this matter? As attorney, school board member, and advocate Julie Hamill has stated: 

If the district court’s rationale stands, and the infusion of racial ideology in elementary schools continues, young children attempting to connect with their peers will be punished when they fail to parrot appropriately the new government-prescribed social justice orthodoxy.  

As well as teachers and administrators who choose to use discretion in these matters or speak out against the racialization of curriculum. These teachers can be targeted and punished for not upholding the orthodoxy, as in 2020, and the matter of Vermont principal Tiffany Riley.

After Principal Tiffany Riley wrote that she does not agree with the BLM, the School Board held an emergency meeting to declare that it is "uniformly appalled" and she was put on leave. The case magnifies concerns over the free speech rights of teachers https://t.co/LL01C0VIdZ

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 16, 2020

As an attorney and a parent, Hamill has taken on the COVID nonsense from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health with great success. Through a partnership with the California Policy Center and Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, she is taking on the California Teachers Association. 

On behalf of California Policy Center and Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, I filed an amicus brief in support of protection of First Amendment rights in school. The case involves the punishment of a first grade child for drawing a picture for her friend that said "Black…

— Julie Hamill (@hamill_law) July 23, 2024

On behalf of California Policy Center and Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, I filed an amicus brief in support of protection of First Amendment rights in school. The case involves the punishment of a first grade child for drawing a picture for her friend that said "Black Lives Mater [SIC], any life," on the grounds that it was "offensive" (because the New York Times said so). The brief lays out the infusion of racial ideology in education and explains the establishment of orthodoxy on social justice issues in school. In California, our teachers unions and government agencies are working together to force adherence to woke ideology in school, penalizing students and terminating teachers and administrators who ask questions or fail to "say the line" as the orthodoxy demands.

Media personality, political analyst, and former RedState editor Kira Davis originally broke this story back in 2022. Chelsea Boyle's daughter "B.B." (the name given to her in the court briefs), who loved to draw, decided to draw a picture in celebration of her diverse friendships.

The picture was meant to represent her closest friends of all different races, and in her uneven, first-grader scrawl, she wrote “Black Lives mater [sic]” at the top, followed by another sentiment, “any lives.” The picture went home with one of Jane’s friends.

B.B. gave it to one of her friends, and when her parents saw it, they took offense. However, instead of going to Boyle to discuss it, they reported B.B. to the principal, who, without Boyle's knowledge, forced B.B. to publicly apologize in front of ALL her classmates and disciplined her.

According to Boyle, when the parents of Jane’s friend saw the drawing, they called the school to complain, deeming it offensive to their family. Viejo Elementary School principal Jesus Becerra then, allegedly, sought out Jane to question her about the drawing. Jane was forced to apologize to her friend for drawing the picture…but not privately. Jane had to deliver the apology on the playground in front of her fellow students and school staff. On top of the apology, Jane was “benched” as punishment, meaning she had her recess time revoked and was forced to sit on a bench while her classmates played during their free time.

In an even more infuriating turn of events, Boyle says she wasn’t notified of the incident by school officials. It was not until nearly a year later, in March of 2022, that she heard about the issue from someone who was a mutual friend of both Boyle and the offended family.

What a tragedy that we have come to this. Some really dim parents were so sensitive to a seven-year-old's innocent drawing that they saw it as a microaggression. But even more tragic is the indoctrination of school officials who are so entrenched in this cultic nonsense that they needed to make an example of a young child.

Although a district court characterized the girl’s artwork as “innocent” and “well intentioned,” the judge ruled that the drawing was not protected speech and upheld the school’s punishment. The lawsuit against Capistrano Unified School District has now been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

More from the amicus curiae brief:

In this era of cancel culture, failure to afford the strong First Amendment protections established by the United States Supreme Court means teachers and administrators are easily pressured to punish innocent, non-offensive speech as racist, out of fear that they will lose their jobs.

As fellow attorney and parent activist Scott Davison affirms, "We shouldn't need courts to resolve common sense issues, but this is the current dogma being taught in our public schools, and it has now infected the judiciary."

Excellent Amicus Brief by @hamill_law on what may be the first lawsuit on "microaggressions:" that your words are offensive even if you intended them to be a compliment.

In this case, a 1st grader was punished for writing something nice to a black classmate, who wasn't offended.… https://t.co/VN2ik8aDFF pic.twitter.com/RZxtbMxDtm

— Scott Davison (@scottyd121) July 24, 2024

Excellent Amicus Brief by @hamill_law on what may be the first lawsuit on "microaggressions:" that your words are offensive even if you intended them to be a compliment. 

In this case, a 1st grader was punished for writing something nice to a black classmate, who wasn't offended. 

Who was offended? The school principal. And the judge, who upheld the punishment that is now being appealed by @PacificLegal to the 9th Circuit. 

Side note: this is a Critical Race Theory concept, as only "oppressors" (people who are white, male, heterosexual or Christian) can commit microaggressions against "marginalized" people, as noted by the official definition below (from my own school district). 

We shouldn't need courts to resolve common sense issues, but this is the current dogma being taught in our public schools, and it has now infected the judiciary. 

Thanks to Julie and @CalPolicyCenter for speaking out on this important issue.

This type of ideological orthodoxy and racial indoctrination within the school system is not just happening in California, but across the country. It is a critical matter that requires everyone's attention and voice.

Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication for clarity.