School Board Can Order High School Teacher to Remove "Hate Has No Home Here" Rainbow Poster
· Reason
From McIntyre v. Little Miami School Dist., decided Monday by Judge Matthew McFarland (S.D. Ohio) (appeal pending):
Plaintiff George McIntyre is a teacher at Little Miami High School, a school within Defendant Little Miami School District ("District"), where he teaches American History and Advanced Placement European History. McIntyre placed a poster in his classroom displaying the slogan "Hate Has No Home Here" ("Poster"), depicted below:
Visit extonnews.click for more information.
As shown above, the Poster features five hands holding hearts filled with distinct symbols, including the American flag, a peace sign, the rainbow pride flag, and the transgender pride flag. McIntyre hung up the Poster to remind his students to "treat all their classmates with mutual respect, regardless of personal opinions or beliefs." …
The District's "longstanding practice" has been to permit teachers to decorate their classrooms and display personal items. That latitude, however, is "defined by" the District's Little Miami School Board ("Board") policy.
That policy landscape shifted when the Ohio General Assembly enacted House Bill 8, known as the Ohio Parents' Bill of Rights. That statute requires school districts to provide parental notice and review for materials containing "sexuality content" and allows parents to opt out for alternative assignments. "[S]exuality content" is defined as "oral or written instruction, presentation, image, or description of sexual concepts or gender ideology in a classroom setting," but explicitly excludes "[i]ncidental references to sexual concepts or gender ideology occurring outside of formal instruction or presentations on such topics." On October 28, 2025, the Board adopted Board Policy 5780.01, incorporating the statute's definitions and notice/opt-out requirements into District policy.
The Board considered restricting classroom wall-hangings exclusively to the U.S. flag, the Ohio flag, and school-related displays, but ultimately concluded that state law and Board Policy 5780.01 provided sufficient oversight. Under District guidance, concerns that a classroom display contains "sexuality content" under state law or Board Policy 5780.01 are subject to a three-tiered review: first by the school principal, then on appeal to the superintendent, and finally to the Board….
In September 2025, Defendant David Wallace, the Board President, visited McIntyre's classroom and photographed the Poster. Thereafter, Wallace contacted District Superintendent Regina Morgan, requesting that McIntyre remove the Poster. Morgan relayed the request to Little Miami High School's Principal, Kevin Harleman.
Harleman spoke with McIntyre about the Poster, and asked whether McIntyre tied the display to his curriculum or classroom discussions, or if it was simply a decorative wall hanging. On February 2, 2026, McIntyre emailed Harleman, identifying specific content standards within the model curriculum for his classes that he felt the Poster was "especially applicable" to. McIntyre further noted that, while the Poster applied to those broad historical themes, it was not used as a formal instructional device and instead was "a reminder that [his students] must treat their classmates with mutual respect." Harleman forwarded that email to Morgan.
The next day, Morgan informed Wallace that, upon her review, while the Poster contained sexual identity symbols, she did not "believe a reasonable observer would conclude its primary purpose [was] to prompt discussion, provide instruction, or solicit student engagement on sexual concepts or gender ideology." Under the "display guidelines," Morgan acknowledged that it was "now a Board decision as to how to move forward." …
[On February 25, t]he Board voted 4 to 1 to classify the Poster as sexuality content under Board Policy 5780.01 and ordered its immediate removal from McIntyre's classroom….
The court rejected McIntyre's claim that the Board's actions violated his First Amendment rights:
Although public employees "undoubtably enjoy certain rights," those rights "do not transform them into 'sovereigns unto themselves.'" Rather, "the government, just like a private employer, retains 'control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created': the employee's job." That authority carries particular significance in the context of public education, where Ohio's compulsory-attendance requirements give public school teachers "a captive audience for their in-class speech." …
[Thus], the Sixth Circuit has held that a public school teacher's in-class curricular and pedagogical choices are not protected by the First Amendment. In reaching this holding, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that "[w]hen a teacher teaches, the school system does not regulate that speech as much as it hires that speech. Expression is a teacher's stock in trade, the commodity [ ]he sells to [his] employer in exchange for a salary." Since Ohio law left curriculum choices to elected school boards as "an accountability measure," those boards are entitled to "regulate the content of what is or is not expressed" on their behalf….
Here, McIntyre spoke as a public employee pursuant to his official duties when displaying the Poster in his classroom. McIntyre hung the Poster to foster a respectful environment among his students and later identified specific state curriculum standards that he believed the Poster supported…. McIntyre's motivations and actions were directly related to, and arose from his professional responsibilities as a teacher shaping his students' learning environment.
Whether McIntyre used the Poster for formal instruction is immaterial. He gained access to and control over the classroom wall space through his position as a public school employee, not as a private citizen. His ability to maintain classroom displays thus existed within the scope of that public employment, which the Board regulated through established policies. As McIntyre displayed the Poster pursuant to his official duties, his expression constituted unprotected employee speech.
Contrary to McIntyre's argument, the Supreme Court's holding in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (2022) does not alter this conclusion. Unlike the high school coach in Kennedy, who offered a brief prayer while essentially "off the clock" after a game, McIntyre maintained a permanent display on his classroom wall that was visible during school hours. Managing the classroom environment during the school day relates to his job responsibilities, not private citizen speech. Kennedy thus does not compel a finding that McIntyre spoke as a private citizen…. The Board was [thus] entitled to restrain [McIntyre's] speech, and McIntyre is not entitled to declaratory judgment that his First Amendment rights were violated….
Omar Tarazi represents defendants.
The post School Board Can Order High School Teacher to Remove "Hate Has No Home Here" Rainbow Poster appeared first on Reason Magazine.