A school east of Wichita “scolded” students who named either President Trump or the late Charlie Kirk as personal role models, a civil rights complaint alleges.
Calling the incident the crossing of “a constitutional line that should alarm every parent in America,” the nonprofit American Center for Law and Justice filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Education against Marshall Elementary School in Eureka.
It happened last October, but “only recently came to light because students were originally instructed not to tell their parents about what happened,” reports Kansas City’s KCTV 5.
As part of a lesson ironically called “Find Your Voice,” the complaint says, a school guidance counselor told sixth-graders to name their role models.
“When a student identified Charlie Kirk as a role model,” the complaint reads, the guidance counselor “got very uncomfortable and refused to allow this name to be written on the board, yelling that he was ‘not a hero,’ and that he was not a role model.
“The student teacher had already started writing Charlie Kirk’s name on the board, and was ordered by [the guidance counselor] to remove it.
“When another student selected President Donald J. Trump as a role model, [the guidance counselor] reiterated her prohibition even more angrily, stating that students could not write political or religious figures on the board, and in fact excluded political and religious topics altogether.”
The guidance counselor allegedly allowed role models such as politically outspoken athletes and even classmates to be written on the board.
“No restriction was placed on potentially controversial secular figures,” the complaint notes. “Only religious and political figures were excluded. Children were allowed to list these figures in their written assignments, but were prohibited from acknowledging the names of religious or political heroes publicly on the board.”
ACLJ says the school defended the counselor’s actions created a climate in which some students – particularly religious ones – weren’t allowed to find their voice.
“The selective prohibition created immediate confusion among students about whose voices were valued and whose were not,” the complaint reads.
“The assignment was titled “Find Your Voice,” yet students learned that their voices would be silenced if they didn’t conform to the teacher’s preferred viewpoints.”
“A parent told KWCH,” the station writes, “that another student chose Jesus as their role model and that the guidance counselor did not allow this either.”
The complaint alleges:
- Religious discrimination
- Political/Viewpoint Discrimination
- Violation of Free Speech Rights
- Violation of Parental Rights:
- Instructing students not to report concerns to their parents;
- Retaliating against parents who raised concerns;
- Refusing reasonable accommodation;
- Retaliation
In a meeting with two concerned parents, school officials said allowing the other role models would’ve created an “unsafe” environment,” the complaint alleges.
“Tellingly,” the complaint reads, “when asked what was ‘unsafe’ about Charlie Kirk or President
Trump, neither administrator could articulate a legitimate pedagogical concern.”
Instead, the counselor argued, their inclusion might have created a backlash against the students naming them – “in other words, that she was engaging in a heckler’s veto,
silencing conservative viewpoints because they might provoke disagreement.”
The counselor later tearfully read an apology to the sixth-grade class that the ACLJ found “inadequate and confusing.”
“Most alarmingly,” the complaint says, the principal allegedly told the class that in the future they should bring concerns to school officials first – not their parents.
“This directive—instructing children not to report concerns to their parents—violates fundamental principles of parental rights, educational ethics, and child safety,” the complaint argues.
“When our client raised this concern in a subsequent email, Principal Coulter initially denied making the statement, then later deflected by claiming the remark was taken out of context. Multiple students, including our client’s daughter, consistently reported hearing this directive.”
