‘Indecent’ proposal: An NC school club’s plan to test their LGBTQ+ trivia skills is game over — for now
by Lucas Thomae, Carolina Public Press February 14, 2025
Public school students have fought for the right to express themselves going as far back as the 1940s, most notably during the 1960s and well into the age of social media. Over the years, the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in schools, the Vietnam War and even Snapchat have been debated. A lawsuit recently filed against Cleveland County Schools, in the western part of the state, could provide the latest addition to the canon.
A student is suing the school district after it prohibited a high school club from playing a quiz game centered around LGBTQ+ history and pop culture.
A complaint filed in U.S. District Court by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina alleges that the county violated free speech protections in the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as federal law, by banning Shelby High School’s Activism Club from playing the game.
Cleveland County school officials claimed they were justified in forbidding the activity, arguing that the quiz game was “indecent based on community standards.”They pointed specifically to references of “bisexuality” and “cigarettes” as examples.
The ACLU’s attorneys see it differently.
The speech in question was political in nature, not indecent, they say. And decades of precedent from past U.S. Supreme Court rulings indicate that students do not shed their constitutional rights once they arrive on campus.
“The school is blatantly violating our client’s First Amendment rights and trying to suggest that a game that is text only, depicts nothing sexual in nature and just acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ+ people and their contributions to society is somehow indecent, lewd or obscene,” ACLU attorney Ivy Johnson told Carolina Public Press. “They’re essentially trying to erase (LGBTQ+ people) from the conversation, which is both a First Amendment violation and extremely dangerous.”
Controversy in Cleveland County
The plaintiff in the case is the student who founded the school’s Activism Club, a 17-year-old referred to in the complaint as M.K.
The club meets monthly during the regular school day — a “flex period” from 10:45 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Students are allowed to use the flex period as they wish. The Activism Club often uses the time to “discuss issues of public interest that are not covered in the official curriculum,” according to the complaint. Some of those have included the Black Lives Matter movement, Women’s History Month, breast cancer awareness, suicide prevention and the war in Gaza.
M.K. first proposed the club play a “Jeopardy!”-style quiz game called “LGBTQ+ Representation” in April 2024 during her sophomore year. The quiz, which M.K. created, featured questions asking club members to identify famous LGBTQ+ individuals including politician Harvey Milk, pop star Lady Gaga and comedian Ellen DeGeneres.
Although the club’s faculty advisor, a school counselor, thought the game was a good idea, Shelby High School Principal Eli Wortman decided that students would need to have permission from their parents in order to play.
Because of this, the scheduled date for the quiz game was postponed until the next school year. It was then that M.K. proposed her club play the quiz game last October.
Her proposal was again denied, but this time the rejection came from Cleveland County Schools Superintendent Stephen Fisher via a school board liaison.
That led to lawyers becoming involved.
In early December, Johnson sent a letter to Cleveland County Schools warning administrators that they violated M.K.’s First Amendment rights by prohibiting the club from playing the game.
Six weeks later, an attorney for Cleveland County Schools replied with a three-page letter, clarifying the policies used to make the decision and insisting it was done in a “content-neutral” manner.
Word to the wise
There’s a storied history of Constitutional civil cases that have determined the extent to which public schools can regulate the speech of students.
Perhaps the most famous is Tinker v. Des Moines in which high school student Mary Beth Tinker successfully sued her Iowa school district for First Amendment violations after she was prohibited from wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker is the origin of the famous maxim that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates,” and it served as the basis for many future school cases.
Public schools can regulate lewd or profane speech as well as that which encourages illegal drug use, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
In 1983, high school student Matthew Fraser unsuccessfully tried to bring a First Amendment claim after being suspended for making a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly.
In 2007, another student’s First Amendment challenge failed after being suspended for holding up a banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” at a school event.
As far as the Cleveland County situation, the complaint alleges the school board may have violated federal law through its unequal treatment of student groups in a “limited open forum.”
The Equal Access Act, passed by Congress in 1984, makes it unlawful for schools that receive federal funding to discriminate against students meeting within a limited open forum, such as school-sanctioned club meetings, on the basis of the speech at those meetings.
“They’ve created this flex period during the day where school clubs and groups can meet,” Johnson said. “In creating this time period, what the school has done is they’ve created this open forum for students. So therefore they cannot discriminate against the Activism Club for wanting to play this game while allowing all these other student groups to discuss whatever they want.”
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
