When students at Centreville High School walked out in protest of recent actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they were threatened by school administrators. Students were told that, because of their walkout, they may not be able to attend prom or graduation.
The actions of Centreville’s administrators are unacceptable. They create a negative precedent for free speech that will inevitably extend to McLean, where walkouts have already been diminished. These actions are in clear violation of district policies, which only outline a very particular set of consequences for students that, at their strictest, extend to brief suspensions. They may not, as administrators have done, issue threats that are disproportionately harsh and only serve to suppress the speech of students.
Under well-established legal precedents, students are not stripped of their First Amendment rights when they pass through the school door. When regulations are imposed on speech, they can only be for the purpose of mitigating substantial disruptions to the learning of others, rather than be targeted at speech that is unfavorable in the eyes of administrators. Recent threats against students, conversely, show that administrators are blatantly disrespecting students’ rights to express themselves and protest in a meaningful way.
Even if students wish to coordinate the event with the school administration, the official prohibition of walkouts during the school day per an update to Regulation 2612.9—Regulations and Procedures Governing Freedom of Expression by Students—makes organizing walkouts even more challenging. If students communicate clearly with administrators beforehand, there is no reason why walkouts during the school day should be prohibited.
Students are also mostly unaware of these policies. For example, the rules surrounding walkouts are contained in Regulation 2612.9, an obscure document that is not discoverable on Google or FCPS pages. Even if students are able to find the document, the consequences for participating in a walkout are not clearly outlined. Regulation 2612.9 references the SR&R in relation to the disciplinary measures for not obtaining approval for a walkout, but the SR&R itself does not clearly set out a specific consequence for this failure. Instead, it references 2612.9 in a circular manner, making the actual policies unclear for students.
Even in FCPS presentations designed to inform students on the permissible applications of speech, such as the mandatory Student Rights & Responsibilities update on March 10, Regulation 2612.9 is not explicitly outlined. Rather, students were given a brief video that mentioned acceptable forms of speech in a general sense and a five-question quiz that added little to their understanding of freedom of expression policies.
Nowhere is there a mention of the underlying body of policies and regulations that governs student speech, and there is also no effort to present a version of the policies in a simplified form that would be understandable for the broader student population. As a result, students are left in the dark, both when it comes to expressing their viewpoints and understanding the potential consequences for their actions.
Going forward, FCPS administrators must first take steps to make their policies more transparent, meaning explicitly naming Regulation 2612.9 and its specific language. They must also allow students to use their civic engagement day for a walkout, because petitioning against the federal government in a respectful walkout is no less protected than petitioning the legislature at the state capitol. Schools should be encouraging students to be responsible, engaged citizens instead of limiting their right to express themselves.
