In the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, students were punished for wearing black armbands as a silent protest against the Vietnam War. They weren’t hurting anybody or disrupting the school’s functions in any way, but simply exercising their First Amendment right to free expression. Now, in 2025, it’s the parents’ turn, as Bow School District has slapped parents with no-trespass orders at their kids’ school for wearing pink armbands with “XX” written on them to a soccer game as a protest against the inclusion of boys in girls’ sports. Like the kids in Tinker, these parents were not disruptive — they were simply watching the game from the stands. As Justice Fortas wrote in the majority opinion for Tinker, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” and I would further argue that parents do not shed their rights on the soccer field.
As a recent high school graduate, the Bow case doesn’t shock me — I dealt with my share
of overbearing and politically-biased school administrators in my time, but I’m glad that their continued and brazen obstruction of fundamental constitutional rights is finally in the limelight. Unfortunately, what may seem to the layman as viewpoint discrimination by a public entity, our judiciary sees it as “protecting students,” to quote Judge Steven McAuliffe, who presided over this case at the District Court level. Students are not protected when one identity group is given special privileges, especially when it comes at the expense of others’ constitutional rights.
Judge McAuliffe asserts that because the armbands conveyed, “a demeaning and
harassing message,” administrators were right to intervene, but that mischaracterizes the protest. The parents sat silently in the stands and didn’t target the transgender student, meaning the conduct cannot be reasonably classified as harassment. McAuliffe ascribed a negative intent to the silent protest to justify suppressing free speech. If this precedent stands, what will stop these overreaching administrators from targeting students next? A student group could just as easily organize a similar protest, and that’s been upheld as constitutional. If it’s such a “demeaning and harassing message,” does that justify the administration stepping in to quash students’ free exercise rights too? This would undermine the precedent set in Tinker, with the Supreme Court siding with the students and their rights to free expression. Why can the students wear armbands but not the parents? Age and the content of one’s speech are not valid grounds for denying constitutional protections.
What’s especially concerning is the inconsistency: there are reports of Pride flags and
other pro-LGBT displays being permitted without issue, yet silent expression of opposing
viewpoints is punished. This shows a clear bias on the part of the District — textbook viewpoint discrimination. Public schools across the state — including my own school district, Winnisquam Regional — have been promoting “LGBT inclusivity” for years now, from “safe space” stickers on teacher and counselor doors to Pride flags in classrooms and administrator offices. All the while, fears of parents and female students regarding the invasion of girls’ private spaces by men have been dismissed and silenced. Judge McAuliffe’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the rights of all New Hampshire students and all students across the United States if upheld on appeal.
With the case being appealed, the District is arguing that they need latitude to prohibit
these protests at all after-school activities on campus because they cannot anticipate whether a transgender person might be present and, apparently, “protecting” such students from seeing worldviews beyond their own is more important than the First Amendment. This is indicative of a growing trend of schools becoming ideological bubbles, isolated from the real world, where teachers and administrators think students need to be sheltered from opposing viewpoints, at the cost of the Constitution.
To avoid more cases like Bow, we need to reinforce constitutional protections for
students and parents in schools — starting with limiting onerous no-trespass orders on parents and clarifying protections for free exercise and organization for students on campus. The legislature passed HB1305 in 2024 to protect certain aspects of college students’ free speech rights, which was a huge win, but high schoolers and below are so often forgotten and left behind. When we leave our primary and secondary students and parents behind, we get cases like Bow, where their inherent rights are trodden upon and they are vilified simply for expressing a belief shared by a vast majority of Granite Staters.
Schools are at the center of students’ lives, where they both learn and socialize. Educators
should work collaboratively with parents to uplift students in all aspects, from academics to athletics to extracurriculars. Schools shouldn’t be havens from free speech, but crucibles for it, where students should feel free to share ideas and learn to compromise and disagree civilly. Free expression doesn’t mean everyone agrees — it means everyone can be heard. But that isn’t being taught, and now even parents are paying the price. If we fail to act, we’re not just letting down Bow’s families — we’re signaling to students and parents across the country that free speech only matters when the message is approved by school bureaucrats. That’s not the New Hampshire way, and it’s not the American way.
James Thibault is a Republican member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives
representing Franklin and Northfield. At age 19, he is the youngest state legislator in the United States.