Durango School District 9-R is one step closer to formalizing its stance on symbols of support for members of the black, brown and LGBTQ community.
Two draft resolutions, which have not been adopted but were discussed by the Board of Education at a meeting Tuesday, would codify the rights of teachers to display the Black Lives Matter flag and an iteration of the LGBTQ pride flag, known as the progress pride flag, in schools.
It was a rapid acceleration from the meeting less than a month ago, when board members indicated support for drafting the resolutions but said the process could take six months.
Board members were met with gratitude and commendation by most community members Tuesday, who said the symbols are an important gesture that indicates belonging for members of marginalized communities.
“When I walk into a classroom and I see a pride flag, that tells me that if, for any reason, a fellow student is bullying me for my sexuality or how I express my gender, that the teacher will have my back,” student Emerald Hoyt told the board.
The resolutions, if passed, are a legal loophole that would allow district employees to display the sanctioned flags without opening the doors to all political symbols.
In October, 9-R administrators ordered the removal of BLM and pride progress symbols from classrooms at the advice of legal counsel in response to one parental complaint.
Parents, teachers, students and community members quickly cried foul of the decision and the district’s elected directors opted to temporarily reverse it just days later.
By then, the issue had become a local manifestation of a national divide over cultural matters, and the district’s intended message – that inclusivity is a top priority however the district must retain a legally defensible position – was drowned out.
The crux of the district’s concern is that the stated intention of the flags’ creators and context surrounding their use arguably makes them inherently political, according to 9-R’s lawyers. And as a government-operated forum, the district may limit what teachers say in schools by class – such as a prohibition of all political speech – but not selectively within a class.
Although the First Amendment constrains how government can (or in most cases, cannot) regulate speech, the Constitution also bestows upon the government its own right to free speech.
“When the government encourages diverse expression – say, by creating a forum for debate – the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint,” former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a 2022 decision. “… But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views.”
If the display of BLM and progress pride flags aligns with a specific policy that constitutes the district’s speech, the flags are not a statement made within a forum operated by the government, but a statement made by the government itself.
This was affirmed in September when a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Denver Public Schools filed by a parent who objected to the presence of LGBTQ pride flags and asked courts to force the district to display “straight pride” flags.
The language of the resolutions recognize the systemic inequities, violence and exclusion experienced by marginalized communities that can be countered, in small ways, by willful recognition.
“The District has often failed to fulfill its obligation to live up to its mission … to guarantee equitable educational opportunities in a safe and healthy environment,” one paragraph of the BLM resolution says.
Language in the other resolution recognizes that “creating LGBTQIA2S+ inclusivity in Durango public schools is not about any one action, and it does not easily transpire with the change of a policy or the passage of a resolution.”
During the 30 minutes of public comment, all speakers offered favorable thoughts about the resolutions.
Robert Bridges, an intersex member of the community whose identity is represented on the progress pride flag but not the standard pride flag, thanked the board for being “empathetic collaborators.”
“You put yourselves out there, you took the risks,” Bridges said. “You gave me courage to put myself out there and take the risks.”
One of the loudest voices in opposition to the resolutions is Hope Scheppelman, the vice chairwoman of the Colorado Republican Party and the secretary of the county party.
In a lengthy email to the school board, Scheppelman urged members to reject the resolutions.
According to Scheppelman, the pride flag is the cause of, rather than a partial remedy to, the heightened rates of suicide and suicidal ideation in the transgender community. She also wrote that the resolution “blatantly disregards students who hold religious, cultural, or personal beliefs that conflict with LGBTQIA2S+ ideologies.”
“These students and families are effectively told they don’t matter,” she concluded.
The resolution says that improving inclusivity and supports for LGBTQ students and staff members does not take away from the inclusion and supports for straight students.
“There’s lots of ways that teachers are bringing their identity into classroom that are just in the water, or seamless, or in the dominant culture,” said Marianna Fischer, who noted seeing her children’s teachers wear necklaces with crosses and photos of heterosexual relationships on their desks.
During the meeting, Board President Kristin Smith reiterated that the core basis for the resolutions is for students to feel a sense of belonging.
Board members will schedule a closed consultation with the district’s lawyers for sometime in January before considering the resolutions for formal adoption.
The drafts can be found attached to the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting on the district’s website at bit.ly/3BoHQDW.
rschafir@durangoherald.com
