Accusing Florida of “dangerous political theater,” state and national teachers unions have urged an appeals court to side with a transgender Hillsborough County teacher who challenged a law requiring educators to use pronouns that align with their sex assigned at birth.
The Florida Education Association, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers last week filed a 47-page brief arguing that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should uphold a district judge’s decision that the law violated the First Amendment rights of teacher Katie Wood.
“This broad, speech-restrictive law singles out Ms. Wood and other transgender educators, prohibiting them from providing students with the personal titles and pronouns they use as a core expression of their identities in their everyday lives,” the friend-of-the-court brief said. “The First Amendment forbids such laws.”
Lawyers for the state went to the Atlanta-based appeals court in April, after Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the 2023 law against Wood. The injunction did not apply statewide or to another plaintiff, AV Schwandes, a nonbinary teacher fired last year by Florida Virtual School, and the underlying lawsuit remains pending before Walker.
A panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments Sept. 24 in Birmingham, Ala., on the Wood injunction.
The pronoun restriction was part of a series of controversial measures that Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican lawmakers have approved in recent years that focus on transgender people. For example, they have sought to prevent trans minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria.
The appeals-court case centers on part of the 2023 law that says a school employee “may not provide to a student his or her preferred personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex.” The state defines sex as what was assigned at birth.
In a June brief filed at the appeals court, lawyers for the state said public-school systems have the authority to regulate speech of employees.
“The law doesn’t prohibit teachers from advocating publicly their views on usage of preferred titles and pronouns generally,” the brief said. “Nor does it prohibit teachers from providing their preferred titles or pronouns to other employees in school or from providing them to anyone outside school. But even if the law affected more than a teacher’s personal speech at work, the state’s interests in furthering its educational policies and preventing disruption outweigh the narrow subset of speech that the law regulates.”
The brief added, “Wood does not speak as a private citizen on a matter of public concern when providing to students a personal title and pronouns that do not correspond to Wood’s sex. But even if Wood did, the state’s interests outweigh Wood’s.”
But attorneys for the teachers unions rejected such arguments in their filing last week.
“Simply put, Ms. Wood — like all school employees — uses personal pronouns and titles — ‘she,’ ‘her,’ and ‘Ms.’ — to refer to herself in every aspect of her interactions with others in the workplace, just as we all do in every aspect of our lives,” the union’s brief said. “These pronouns and titles do not owe their existence to her responsibilities as a public employee.”
The brief also contended that the “mandate that transgender educators misidentify themselves is part of a broader effort in Florida to withdraw signs of inclusion in schools, including bans on inclusive symbols such as the pride flag and book bans that are easily weaponized against LGBTQ+ books and authors.”
“Laws that target the speech and viewpoints of vulnerable minority groups — based on ignorance, fear, or a desire to harm — are unconstitutional,” the unions’ brief said. “(The pronoun restriction) is such a law, and certainly not the only one Florida has enacted in recent years. Unfortunately, Florida’s public-school students, families and educators are once again the ones who bear the brunt of this dangerous political theater.”
–Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida
Bill Boots says
“American Federation of Teachers last week filed a 47-page brief”, all unions should do is protect jobs, negotiate better wages, benefits and protection of seniority for rank and file membership, 47 pages of blather prep costs mega $$$, improve your members protection, with that money, cut union leadership overhead and stay out of our pants!
Nancy N. says
The union IS protecting the job of their member and other members in similar situations. Their jobs become untenable and under threat when they are not allowed to use their preferred pronouns in front of students.
Ed P says
Teachers unions may well be the most destructive body in the public school system.
They wield far too much power and have their own agenda that no longer aligns with “teaching”.
There are so many critical issues that require a cohesive collaboration of everyone that this kind of folly won’t make the top 25 list.
Where has all our common sense gone?
Pierre Tristam says
Surely there are better autoerotic aids than reading Chris Ruffo and spilling the effluents here. Please keep in mind that cleaning supplies don’t come cheap.
Ed P says
Pierre,
Fyi, never heard or read a word from Chris Ruffo. Your assumption is totally wrong….again
Pierre Tristam says
No one reads Ruffo. He’s unreadable. That doesn’t mean the disingenuous reactionary right doesn’t swim in his swill. His cynicism is the language of contempt for the humane and the tolerant. I’m sure you haven’t read Orwell either. Doesn’t make your comments any less Orwellian.
Ed P says
Did my research. I now have a base line to understand you better.
In fact, I do understand the definition of Orwellian and did read Nineteen Eighty-Four.
My comments Orwellian? A bit over the top and to use one of your descriptions, shrill.
melly says
Really super tired of this nonsense being pushed in schools. Enough is enough. Nobody needs to “honor pronouns” which do not obviously apply to a person. This is ridiculous.
Teachers, theirs unions and schools have no business bringing any of this to students or involving staff that teaches them or otherwise works on their behalf in any way. No business! If the “trans” teacher doesn’t like it or can’t handle it, the “trans” teacher should find other employment.
Ray W. says
As a teenager, my father taught me to always respect how others wanted to be addressed by telling me the story of when he agreed to serve out the rest of term of a justice of the peace who had been removed from office for malfeasance. My father told me that the constable who called the docket had long called Black people to the court by calling Ms. Jane or Mr. John, without using their proper names. The first time the constable did it in my father’s courtroom, my father stopped him by asking if Mrs. Johnson had given him permission to call her by her first name. My father always ended the story by adding that the constable looked as if my father had slapped him across the face with a glove. People just didn’t respect certain other people in those days to call them by their proper names. I guess you don’t either.
As an aside, my father never wanted to be a judge. The business leaders of the community asked him to do it. When the term ended, he left the bench and never went back. He was a zealous advocate at heart, and he knew he didn’t have it in him to be a judge. He died a zealous advocate. I am a zealous advocate. I oppose the hateful among us. I oppose those who wish harm, including death, on others. I oppose those who announce an intent to slit throats, if elected. I oppose those who wish to crush vermin or predict blood in the streets. I oppose those who urge others to throw protestors off bridges. I oppose those who ask just when will it be time to start beheading Democrats. I oppose those who tell rallygoers that “some people need killing.” I oppose those who urge followers to strap on Glocks prior to leaving to vote.
One legal definition of malice is ill will or hatred directed to the person or property of another. The malicious are among us. They have always been among us. They will always be among us. Is it possible that the malicious think their malice is normal? Preferred?
Laurel says
“They (the malicious) will always be among us. Is it possible that the malicious think their malice is normal? Preferred?
Think Judas, or et tu Brute?
Normal, no. I believe they know better, and I imagine the rationalization strenuous. Preferred? Yes, and they love it becoming normalized, hence Trump, and now temporary sidekick Vance.
To All I Know says
You are losing this battle! I am so amazed by our youth being more accepting, more caring, and more protective of the other! I understand your need to claw and strike out against what you don’t understand or can accept. The struggle has been so very long and so very hard, but our generational bridge builders between hatred, misunderstanding, and clinging to morals that aren’t moral, loving, or kind at all are at an all time low. I think the question isn’t a colonialist one of conform or move away, find another job, or “go back to where you came from”; but rather the response is becoming if the “misguided, hate-filled, non-trans understanding” person doesn’t like it or can’t handle it, the “MH-FN-TU” person should leave, find other employment, or go back to your ancestors home. Unless your Native American/Indian- you came from somewhere else. Why would you care or be upset that someone requests specifics in how you address them?! The South is well known for using Miss “first name” and Mr “first name” as a sign of respect to your elders. It didn’t mean that in the past. If we don’t learn to understand, connect, and have conversations; then we are doomed as the human race. We quietly made our younger generations know that they all matter, we love them no matter what, we are there for them to help in any way necessary, and we support their dreams and future endeavors. If you disagree with that, then you are the one that “can’t handle it”. I hope you don’t end up in a nursing home where one of our incredibly intuitive and loving children look after you and your being comfortable, happy, and feeling loved. That seems like a really long and sad road for you. Thanks to all the parents, siblings, neighbors, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, teachers, villages, and so many more that I can’t name them all (pest control people, lawn care and maintenance, store clerk, restaurant owners, and everyone) that have built up our youth, led the way, gave them a recourse in the right direction, listened, gave a hug, firmly said “NO”, and gave any notice or made them feel seen. This is the quiet force that you will never understand or be able to aid/participate in until you can come to terms with why you have so much hate. We hate the hate and have worked relentlessly to weaken it. I do hope you realize you have lost. The last scramble to save hatred may have a handful of years left, but it is running out of time. What say you? Lover of people and our youth? Helper of shaping a more connected community? Just gunna sit at home and well in your hate? Join the love….it is a much better way!
P.S. Ray W- you keep thinking and learning and growing and helping our clarity. I really appreciate you for who you are!!!
Ray W. says
Thank you, To All I Know.
Every moment of every day, I have a choice.
Shall I follow a structure of an ancient Greek law of a debt of blood vengeance (honor-based legal system) or a form of law based on justice (respect-based legal system)? Many times, I fail in my choices, yet I continue to choose.
The earliest recorded example of a society debating a shift from an honor-based system to a respect-based system was the Oresteia, or the three plays of Agamemnon. Writings of these plays survived somewhat intact the passage of approximately 2500 years largely because succeeding generation after generation understood their importance, their societal value. How can any paper document survive 2500 years without people considering the ideas preserved on the pages valuable?
As an aside, I respect you and any other FlaglerLive commenter who allows reason based on intellectual rigor to guide them. Not because reason provides only one answer; it doesn’t. The two forms of reason that we call logic are supposed to give us answers to the exclusion of any other possible answer (perfect or bad answers). The third form of reason, which we call argumentation, is supposed to give us guidance on how to choose among multiple possible good or bad choices (good, better, best/bad, worse, worst answers).
When the Great Depression hit, the presidential administration openly chose to allow the free market to control the damage. For four years, the economy staggered and collapsed. FDR adopted Keynesian economics (deficit spending to heat a freezing economy). The country began a long and slow recovery. In 1936, the public, afraid of the unfunded deficit spending, elected a conservative Congress that cut off the spigot. We immediately went back into recession (perhaps the first of several double-dip recessions), but we had recovered enough to stave off a return to depression. The weak economy continued to struggle until wartime spending roared it to health.
For the next 80 years each recession (10 in my lifetime) involved some form of deficit spending. For example, when the pandemic hit and the economy was shut down, the first unfunded stimulus funding bill ($2 trillion) passed the Senate on a 96-0 vote! Can it be argued that all 96 Senators understood that the massive spending bill carried with it the risk of inflation? Accepted economic theory called for a stimulus bill and the Senate, again, voted 96-0 to spend two trillion dollars we didn’t have, possible inflation be damned.
The House, by then voting in absentia, passed it on a voice vote. They, too, knew of the inflationary risk, yet they chose spending. Then-President Trump signed it. We began injecting the $2 trillion into the rapidly cooling economy.
Eight months later, Congress passed a $900 billion unfunded stimulus funding bill. Same risks, same passing vote by both houses. Then-President Trump signed it into law. We began injecting that money, too, into the still cool economy.
Congress then passed at least three more unfunded stimulus funding bills during the early Biden years. Same risk, same passing vote. We began injecting another nearly $3 trillion of unfunded stimulus money into the economy. It roared back to life.
We have ever since had the strongest economic recovery in the world, but it didn’t come without cost. $4 trillion of the $8 trillion in debt that was added during the Trump years is attributed by economists to the negative effects of the stimulus packages. Same thing for the Biden bills.
In the perfect or bad world lived in by some FlaglerLive commenters, nothing bad can ever happen from Trump spending $2.9 trillion. In their perfect or bad world, everything bad happened when Biden spent $3 trillion. In a good, better, best/bad, worse, worst world, the good that came from spending that much money by both administrations carried a serious negative: massive amounts of debt.
We went into recession before the effects of Trump’s spending slowed the effects of the recession. After about six months, we emerged from recession. Trump was still president. Had he done nothing? Perhaps depression. But he did something. Then Biden did the same thing; he spent more money. The soon-to-be overheated economy eventually needed to be cooled, lest we go into runaway inflation. The Fed raised lending rates. Some say too late. Others claim too high. Who knows. But the economy is cooling. Inflation is dropping.
What tomorrow brings, no one knows. Many will predict, hoping to gain fame by being coincidentally right. Some will promise, hoping to gain votes, right or wrong.
james morrison says
you mean we are still not on lock due to covid? to protect the teachers – sorry i meant protect the students