If Charlie Kirk Day is OK, why parent approval for student walkouts? | Opinion

Kansas legislators’ push for the state budget bill amendment that would prohibit students to protest or rally during school hours without parental permission seems to be a contradiction to recent action taken just last month.

This action promoted free speech when that speech supports an issue Republican lawmakers also support.

Remember Charlie Kirk?

Have Republican lawmakers already forgotten that in February, they designated a day in October to be celebrated as Charlie Kirk Free Speech Day in Kansas? Kirk, known to have made sexist and racist comments, was the conservative activist shot and killed on a Utah college campus last September.

So, it’s OK for students to celebrate Kirk, whom Republicans hold up as a model for free expression, but not OK for students, who might not be partisan to Kirk to rally in denouncing aggressive federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions that have lead to the killing of American citizens? That is absolutely the opposite of supporting free speech, even when you don’t agree with what is being said.

This proposed approval amendment came after state senators representing parts of Johnson County questioned school policy on protests and walkouts, days after a fight broke out during a student-led protest last month at an Olathe high school.

Given that on one hand lawmakers encourage students to rally in celebration of Kirk, and on the other want to restrict school protests against ICE or discrimination against transgender students, I can see why some argue this latest amendment violates students’ right to free speech and assembly.

Lawmakers who are in favor of the amendment say they just want to keep kids safe and that it is not intended to stifle students’ right to free speech. Those opposed to the proposed measure argue, however, that muzzling students is exactly the reason it’s being put forth.

I can’t help agreeing with the latter, and believe that Republican lawmakers are not being honest here.

One point opposers have made is that the measure goes against the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Tinker v. Des Moines, declaring that students do not lose their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression when they enter school property.

“I’m completely bothered by it,” said Kansas state Sen. Cindy Holscher, a Democrat who lives in Overland Park, referring to the new amendment.

“I am absolutely bothered by it going against freedom to assemble, freedom to speak. Students, over the years, have played a major role,” in politics, social justice and change in this country, said Holscher, who was among the minority who voted against the amendment. It passed the Senate 21 to 18 and now goes before the House.

State Sen. Mike Murphy, the Republican who sponsored the amendment, has argued that it has nothing to do with free speech. “Students can still protest — they just have to get permission,” Murphy told KCUR public radio on Thursday. He also suggested that students save their protests for after-school hours.

He said the amendment has more to do with keeping students safe. I’m not buying that, because how does having parental permission to protest prevent student confrontations? Of course it doesn’t.

And, besides, schools already have policies requiring students to get permission from a parent before leaving the school building for any reason during school hours.

This amendment really shouldn’t go any further, because it’s nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a non-problem, with a huge fine attached to it to give it space in an already-packed budget bill.

The next time Kansas lawmakers get the notion to delve into education issues they know little about, they first should consult the state’s educators. And instead of telling educators what to do, they should ask them what they can do to help and be honest about it.