Last week, two students at Celina High School celebrated “Twin Day” with T-shirts that read “Lesbian 1″ and “Lesbian 2,” but they were forced to remove them. In response, some 20 students went to school Tuesday wearing home-made T-shirts that read “I Support… [Rainbow] Express Yourself” and “Straight but Supportive,” a show of support organized by sophomore Jimmy Walter. Assistant Principal Phil Metz forced all the students to remove the shirts because they were “political,” and those who did not were given detention with the threat of suspension.

Though Metz and Principal Jason Luebke have yet to respond, Superintendent Jesse Steiner offered this weak defense for the disciplinary action:

STEINER: The only reason they would be told that they couldn’t wear something is if it is a disruption of the educational process, or if it’s not allowed in the handbook. And there’s a line in our handbook about drawing undue attention to yourself.

It’s true that the student handbook limits dress that could “materially interfere with school work, create disorder, or disrupt the educational program,” but Steiner’s interpretation of that policy in this case is grossly unconstitutional.

ACLU Ohio points out that this is considered a “heckler’s veto,” an attempt to shut down free speech that the administrators in the very conservative district happen to disagree with. Erick Warrner, a Celina junior who brought attention to this situation on Reddit, points out that plenty of “political” dress is regularly tolerated at the school, including “Students for Life” anti-choice T-shirts with pictures of fetuses, as well as blatantly political shirts supporting Mitt Romney for President or calling President Obama a socialist. In fact, just this week the school hosted a Romney campaign event at which Paul Ryan spoke.

Both the students and the school are consulting lawyers, but it’s clear the students would have a winning case. In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that “state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism” and students are entitled to free speech so long as it does not “interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” Benignly gay-supportive t-shirts come nowhere close to meeting that standard. If anybody disrupted the educational process, it was the administrators who removed the students from the classroom and violated their First Amendment rights.

Following through on its promise to challenge California’s new ban on ex-gay therapy for minors, the Pacific Justice Institute has filed suit on behalf of a self-proclaimed “ex-gay” therapist-in-training, Aaron Bitzer, and two other therapists, Donald Welch and Anthony Duk, who provide reparative therapy. The suit is rife with spurious claims and meritless demands that essentially equate to whining about the law’s limitations, none of which comes close to meeting a Constitutional challenge. Here is a sampling from the complaint, aptly filed under “Plaintiffs’ Beliefs”:

Forced to discriminate?

If a minor’s objectives are to bring his or her sexual conduct and desires into conformity with the religious traditions, cultural norms, and moral standards of the minor, Dr. Duk can provide treatment so long as the minor is heterosexual. However, under the statute in question, a minor who has unwanted same sex behaviors or attractions cannot be treated with either counseling or prescription medications. [...] Dr. Duk is therefore required to discriminate against minor patients for no other reason than their sexual orientation.

The complaint refers to such conduct as “sexual behaviors, desires, and addictions such as pornography.” Under the law, there’s no reason that gay youth could not pursue therapy for the very same things so long as it’s not in the context of denying, repressing, or attempting to change their sexual orientation. These therapists are basically admitting that they would intentionally discriminate against any gay kid who still wanted affirmation for his or her orientation.

Violation of professional ethics?

The statute materially interferes with the plaintiff mental health professionals’ exercise of their independent professional judgment in providing treatment to minors who have unwanted same sex behaviors or attractions… This is in violation of these plaintiff mental health professionals’ obligations under the rules of professional ethics to provide treatment to persons regardless of their sexual orientation.

Providing ex-gay therapy is already a violation of their professional ethics, as all major professional psychotherapy organizations have condemned the practice as ineffective and harmful. That they seek to provide it nevertheless demonstrates that their “independent professional judgment” is severely compromised.

Read more