The parents of a student from Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte, North Carolina, have initiated a federal lawsuit against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. They allege that the school district violated their daughter’s constitutional rights.
Background of the Case
The lawsuit stems from an incident involving a painted message on the school’s spirit rock related to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk. Initially, school officials labeled the painting as vandalism and claimed to have contacted law enforcement for a criminal investigation.
Change in Official Stance
Weeks later, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools revised their statement, asserting that no vandalism occurred and that no investigation took place. The district’s retraction followed numerous requests from the parents for a public correction.
Legal Representation and Allegations
Attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a prominent Arizona-based group known for its conservative advocacy, are representing the family. The lawsuit, filed on December 8 in the Western District of North Carolina, claims violations of free speech and due process rights.
- The lawsuit cites discriminatory practices in supporting student causes.
- Phone records indicate the student sought prior approval for the painting.
Actions by School Officials
According to the lawsuit, after painting the message, school officials swiftly covered it up and implemented new guidelines regarding the decoration of the spirit rock. This rock, historically open to various messages, has hosted phrases related to movements like Black Lives Matter.
The lawsuit further charges that school authorities interrogated the involved students and accessed their cell phone records without duly informing them of their rights. These actions were implied to be part of the initially claimed “criminal investigation,” which is now denied by school officials.
Current Status
Responses from school district officials regarding the lawsuit have not been forthcoming, as they typically refrain from commenting on ongoing legal matters. The outcome of this case could have significant implications on free speech rights within educational settings.
