Do schools have a right or an obligation to control a particular narrative on school grounds? Can they control what messages everyone can express on campus? What if it hurts someone’s feelings? What if it makes them uncomfortable? How much responsibility does the school have in controlling a particular message? What if the message is about sharing your sexual preferences with children? What about sharing a preference for who should gain membership on girls’ designated teams? Which preferences are allowed to be expressed silently, but openly?
What if the silent expression is held by the majority, but the school staff still disagrees? Should they still be able to control the message? In Bow, New Hampshire, parents and grandparents were trespassed and prevented from wearing clothing that expressed their view regarding women’s sports. Several spectators silently wore pink wristbands that simply had two X’s handwritten on them. There was a transgender player playing on the opposing Plymouth team, and the wristband represented their silent, yet expressive, disagreement with the arrangement.
School staff instructed the referee to stop the game and demand the removal of the wristbands, causing a scene that the parents hadn’t intended. They did not expect to be forced to leave and then be trespassed from all future school activities, just for wanting to silently wear expressive wristbands.
A similar type of viewpoint discrimination was clearly evident last school year within the Kearsarge School District. The control of the narrative led the sex offender father of the trans identifying soccer player to breach his bail conditions AT school events. A known sex offender (post conviction, but pre-incarceration) was allowed to attend high school girls’ soccer games ALONE because it fit the trans inclusive narrative.
Those who spoke up about the father, or his trans identifying child, were silenced with similar viewpoint discrimination. When a parent tried to alert other schools of the sex offender father attending events without a chaperone, her reports were treated as a bigoted viewpoint and were immediately silenced.
The facts about the legality of the player and the father’s criminal attendance were not considered. The sex offender father continued to attend additional games without supervision, and the child was permitted to play against state law, HB1205 https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1205/id/2868559. Parents were silenced as the offenses continued. The offender, Marc Jacques, was eventually searched by federal law enforcement for additional child abuse materials. He was found in possession of more illegal child sexual abuse images, and additional charges were filed. Had parents’ complaints not been silenced earlier, it’s doubtful Marc Jacques would have had the opportunity to reoffend at games.
A chaperone would have minimally been required for him to attend any school functions. But because of the strict control of the trans narrative, he was allowed to attend unsupervised, and parents’ complaints were immediately shut down. If your daughter wanted to play soccer within the division, she would have to endure both an illegal biological male and his sex offender father with his phone out. https://granitegrok.com/new-england/nh/2025/02/the-narrative-will-stop-you
The result of this free speech case in Bow could shut down any narrative schools choose, mainstream or not. The dangerousness of parents’ concerns would be irrelevant. Some topics will clearly get priority on school grounds, and some will be silenced. Currently, XX, the expression of women’s chromosomes, is considered hate speech by the Bow School District. Stand for the rights of biological women, and that speech will be shut down and controlled. If it’s inclusionary speech, such as inviting unsupervised sex offenders… it appears OK. But exclusionary, NO. Exclusionary ideas appear to be silenced as a rule. Apparently, keeping known sex offenders away from children isn’t inclusive enough, so Kearsarge officials let sex offender Marc Jacques attend girls’ soccer games unsupervised, demanding everyone stay silent about his presence and the presence of his trans identifying child on the girls’ team. Viewpoint discrimination took precedence over the existing law in the Kearsarge District.
This Bow XX Free Speech case could change the future of campus expression forever. Debate could be completely shut down on all campuses rather than being an expected part of the school experience. What will campus life be like if a specific narrative is controlled in schools? What messages will be silenced next? How dangerous could it get?
Listen to the latest legal arguments regarding the Bow XX Free Speech case here https://www.ifs.org/blog/free-speech-arguments-episode-39-can-schools-ban-parents-from-silent-protest-on-school-grounds-fellers-v-kelley/
Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
