Mom defends special-needs son, silenced by school board bullies online and offline

In March 2020, when the Gladstone School District announced it would ⁢transition to remote learning, Oregon‍ mother Glenda⁢ Scherer was concerned ⁣about the effect ⁤this⁢ action would have on her daughter and special-needs son. She soon began to speak‍ out, utilizing the​ district’s social media pages and‌ board meetings to ask questions‍ and offer feedback.

It didn’t take long for the district to attempt to silence her.

Scherer explains ⁢it started with a virtual school board meeting in July 2020. When she submitted a public comment‍ that was critical of the district, it was not only disregarded during the⁢ meeting but even excluded from the minutes. Although the board claimed ⁤it would consider her comments and address them at ⁢a later date,‍ it never did. When the board muted Scherer, she changed her display name to “Unheardparent” —‌ a moniker she has since adopted on social media, where she has a growing audience of 11.5K followers.

The district escalated its online censorship campaign by blocking her on Twitter, requiring her Facebook ⁤posts on a school page to be⁤ preapproved ⁣by ⁤school personnel, and prohibiting her from tagging the district on social media. The district also sent Scherer a letter purporting to ban her from attending public school board ⁣meetings in person — unless and until the superintendent granted approval.

Notably, the board also adopted ⁢a ‍ban ⁣on “comments regarding any individual district staff‌ member” — a policy‌ it has interpreted​ so broadly as to prohibit any criticism of board members or high-level district employees, even if only referenced by title. This policy silenced Scherer even⁣ as she ⁢sought answers about the district’s⁤ failure ‌to discipline an employee who had been investigated for abusing her 5-year-old son.

At the time, Scherer reported to local media that she received a vague letter stating that school personnel had used “a restraint” on her son,⁣ but could ⁢not obtain further documentation ‍of the incident. Scherer was then excluded from a debrief meeting on the incident, even though Oregon law requires that parents be invited to attend such meetings. When she asked her son what had happened,⁢ he ​talked about being dragged out of‌ the room by his feet and told her, “I want to go ​to a school where the teachers don’t⁢ hurt ‌the‌ kids.”

The Oregon‌ DHS sent officials to investigate, but due​ to​ the narrow‌ scope of the definition of “child abuse” at the time, ‌they were unable to ⁢substantiate the claims.

To add insult to injury, the ​district kept that employee working in ‌the‌ same classroom during‍ the investigation and offered ⁤no other educational options for Scherer’s son.

Since then, the state of Oregon adopted Senate Bill 790, which has expanded the definition of child abuse to ​include restraints ​and seclusion.⁢ While this meaningful change will help parents seek justice for their children in the future, it does​ not change⁤ what⁤ happened to Scherer’s son.

Meanwhile, Gladstone School District is still⁤ stonewalling her concerns, and its social⁤ media ‌and public hearing⁣ policies continue to infringe​ on her constitutional right to free speech.

So when Scherer approached my organization, Liberty Justice Center (LJC),⁣ we were eager to take her case — LJC has a proud history of defending Americans’ First ‌Amendment rights and working to expand educational freedom. Both of those⁣ principles ⁢are threatened when government officials collude to silence⁤ parents who want to improve their⁤ school districts.

Gladstone School District’s actions are⁢ blatantly unconstitutional. The district’s requirement⁣ that comments⁣ receive preapproval from school officials is a classic example of an ⁢unconstitutional prior⁤ restraint, and in a 2022 decision soon to be considered by ⁣the Supreme ⁢Court, the Ninth Circuit Court held that school board‍ members who ‌blocked their critics on social media had violated the First ⁣Amendment.

On a personal level, the policy I found most ‍offensive was the district’s ban on criticism of its own employees and⁢ administrators — a type of⁣ policy referred to by attorney ⁣Alan Gura of the Free Speech Institute as ⁣“the Voldemort Rule: he who must not be named.” This policy⁢ struck a nerve because my own⁣ political awakening occurred while observing school board meetings in middle school after my upstate New York school district voted to remove the​ name​ “Indians” from the⁣ school’s sports teams and replace it with… nothing. The controversy that ensued became so vicious that it was profiled by The New York‌ Times as a “Catskills Culture War.”

As the Times accurately observed, those “board meetings⁤ [were] loud and ugly, with names ⁢like ‘racists’ and ‘freaks’ flying freely.” But, to‍ the⁢ board’s credit, they allowed community members to ‌speak their minds,⁢ engaging with irate parents⁣ and students alike, and defending ⁢their position to the public. Voters ultimately had the final say, ⁢electing a new slate of board members⁣ who voted to reinstate the team’s name.

To ‍me and the other ​students in our rural school district,​ the ⁢experience provided invaluable lessons on American principles like ​democracy, free speech, and government transparency. However, in Gladstone and elsewhere,⁤ school districts are teaching students ‌a different lesson — that ‍dissent should be silenced and government officials should be insulated​ from criticism. This ⁢is wrong.

Fortunately, parents and advocates like Scherer have been pushing back. For example, school officials in Broward⁣ County, Florida, received an icy reception from a panel ‍of 11th Circuit judges skeptical of their censorship regime. Similarly, the Foundation for ‍Individual Rights and⁣ Expression recently stood up for parents in Teaneck, New Jersey, who were censored for criticizing their superintendent’s response to the recent escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian⁣ conflict.

Ultimately, the First Amendment⁤ protects the right of these parents‌ to publicly criticize⁢ their school districts, not just through vague references ⁤to policies but through frank and direct criticism‌ of the administrators and educators‍ implementing those policies. Accordingly, the Liberty Justice Center has sent a‌ demand letter to ⁤Gladstone School District, calling on the district to immediately bring its ‍social media and public​ comment policies and practices into compliance with the First Amendment.

The ball is now‌ in​ Gladstone’s court. ‍If they do not comply, Liberty Justice Center stands ready to vindicate Scherer’s constitutional rights in⁤ federal court.