🥨 👈 This is Your Brain on Jesus

2026 FFRF awards scholarships to 2026 Lorraine Hansberry winners

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is excited to announce, in association with the Women’s Leadership Project, the awardees of the 2026 Lorraine Hansberry Humanist Scholarship Awards.

FFRF gave $2,500 to help fund scholarships for four college students this year. The honorees were chosen by the Women’s Leadership Project, which, with Young Male Scholars, conducts school and community-based peer education programming, outreach and professional development, offering invaluable life and job training skills.

The award memorializes Hansberry, the freethinking playwright who famously wrote in 1964: “Though it be a thrilling and marvelous thing to be merely young and gifted in such time, it is doubly so — doubly dynamic — to be young, gifted and Black.” Hansberry’s freethinking play, “A Raisin in the Sun” (1959), was the first drama by a Black woman produced on Broadway and features an atheist, feminist protagonist.

Awardees receive between $250-$1,000 in honor of their humanistic racial and gender justice community service, peer education and organizing engagement during their high school and college careers.

Participating students meet weekly with program coordinators and interns and are trained in sexual harassment and sexual violence prevention, LGBTQ-plus youth leadership outreach and homeless education.

For the past several years, these youths have demonstrated outstanding social justice leadership, peer education and community organizing. These multiyear college scholarships are designed to support Women’s Leadership Project and Young Male Scholars’ youth through graduation. The majority are first-in-the-family college students. Besides the Freedom From Religion Foundation, support was also provided by the Carrie and Ellie Harrington Fund.

This year’s scholarship winners are:
Ama Boateng (UC-Merced), $1,500.
E’niya Glover (Howard University), $500.
A’Mor Jackson (UC-Davis), $1,500.
Divine Omoruyi (U.S. Army), $1,000.

Ama Boateng 
“I joined the Women’s Leadership Project when I was 16. I will be attending UC Merced and enter as a junior in the field of aerospace engineering. My alma mater is Alexander Hamilton Senior High School as well as West Los Angeles College. My academic and professional aspirations include attaining a bachelor’s degree and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering. I would like to use these degrees to join a start-up or large corporation to manage or contribute to aero and astronautical systems, while actively using my knowledge and skill set for prosperity.

“My profession of choice is indeed extremely male-dominated and those effects I have already felt in the STEM community. So, with these passions and game-changing goals, I will encourage inclusion in my field and potentially teach my profession later in my career.

“Many of these ambitions and skills are linked to my time in the Women’s Leadership Project. It was there that I learned the value of self-advocacy, persistence and intellect. Many times, I believed that my silence or lack of action would remove me from the truth and I would be able to live freely. But that’s not the case. Speaking against choices made for me allowed me to define what is to be me, to be intelligent. It allowed me to feel comfortable enough to speak against those in Public Comment, who make poor decisions for my community, and force them to recognize their shortcomings. It allowed me to march and protest with my peers and bring awareness to issues like sex trafficking and gender-based violence, issues I thought would not affect me. Women’s Leadership has brought me truth and community, themes that I always yearned to be a part of.”

E’niya Glover
“I am 17 years old and I joined the Women’s Leadership Project in 2025. I graduated from King Drew Magnet High School and I will be attending Howard University with plans to major in psychology. I hope to become a forensic psychologist who would bring meaningful change to society.

“I find myself eager and driven to advocate for equity and inclusion in my community. I am motivated to challenge myself every day to beat the stereotypes attached to me. I have no choice but to notice the constant disparities against minorities, and I find that my own intersectionality has brought its share of challenges. Constantly overcompensating, speaking out and refusing to be dimmed or pushed to the back are things that I deal with every day as a Black woman, navigating a world that wasn’t set up for me.

“By being involved in the Women’s Leadership Project, I was able to advocate and use my voice to inspire change among my peers and the overall public. I was able to cultivate the thoughts and concerns that were always in the back of my mind and was able to share them loudly without shame. The Women’s Leadership Project gave me the space to build, grow and learn.

“Events such as our recent beach retreat and the UCLA youth summit were opportunities given to my peers and me to hold space for each other and truly express the topics that hold the most value in our lives: equity, justice, alliance, racial equality and a safe space for LGBTQIA+ youth who often struggle in silence. Through these events, we discussed real-world issues and what might need to change to improve those sad realities. We drummed, did yoga, collaborated and smiled. It’s these events that hold the most impact.”

A’Mor Jackson
“I am 17 years old and I joined the Women’s Leadership Project in 2023. I graduated from King/Drew High School and will be attending the University of California, Davis. My academic goal is to earn a bachelor’s degree in nutritional science and become a pediatric dentist with my own practice.

“Through my dental career, I hope to provide affordable dental health care in South Central Los Angeles and create confident smiles for children. By building a pediatric dental office, I plan to create a safe environment where children can have positive experiences, gain confidence and have access to resources for the youth at risk.

“The Women’s Leadership Project has taught me the importance of advocacy, leadership and using my voice to create change. Participating in the #Standing4Black rally for Missing and Murdered Black Girls showed me the importance of sharing people’s stories and voices, while speaking at City Council meetings taught me how to take action and advocate for my community. These experiences improved my leadership skills and inspired me to continue empowering others by being involved in my community. As I pursue my education and career, I will carry the Women’s Leadership Project teachings by advocating for communities, creating safe spaces for youth and using my leadership to make a positive impact overall.”

Divine Omoruyi
“I am 18 years old and I joined the Women’s Leadership Project in my junior year of high school. This month, I graduated from King Drew Magnet High School, and I will be attending California State University Long Beach. Some academic goals that I’m pursuing are to earn a bachelor’s degree in my chosen major and to then work toward a master’s degree shortly after. I have not yet decided what I would like to get my degree in, but through research studies and internship programs I am confident that I will be able to know what’s right for me and my future.

“I also intend to get a realtor’s license and start a few businesses to provide for myself and my community. I want to improve my community and other communities around the world. I want to be the person that younger generations can relate to.

“My goals align with the Women’s Leadership Project by being a person that others can see to know that their stories are valid and valued. I want to be a support system for everyone who needs it because I know how it feels to not have it. The Women’s Leadership Project has been extremely impactful in my life, making me realize that there is a plethora of things in this world that go unheard, unseen and unnoticed. Some recent events that have made me realize that was our annual rally that took place at Leimert Park. That rally helped me understand how others view our society because they are unaware of the tragedies that occur within our neighborhoods.

“Another action was definitely the LGBTQ+ youth summit. This summit made me realize that even though you can be open about your sexuality nowadays, it doesn’t mean that others still support your choices. All in all, the Women’s Leadership Project took my hand and made me look outside of the box and showed me what I had always known — that there was a bigger world out there.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.

The post 2026 FFRF awards scholarships to 2026 Lorraine Hansberry winners appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Freethought Radio – August 6, 2026

After reporting problems created by — as well as victories against — Christian nationalism, we hear the co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus, Reps. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaking at the third annual Congressional Reason Reception in Washington, D.C., co-sponsored by FFRF.

The post Freethought Radio – August 6, 2026 appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The real threat isn’t Muslims — it’s government religious favoritism

The Freedom From Religion Foundation chastises a Senate hearing yesterday for promoting anti-Muslim fearmongering and undermining the First Amendment.

The Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee hearing was aptly and ominously titled: “Hidden in Plain Sight: Confronting the Muslim Brotherhood Network in America,”

“Hidden in plain sight is the fact that Sen. Ted Cruz and others are engaged in a latter-day witch hunt to demonize a religious minority while at the same time seeking to use our federal government to promote Christian nationalism,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

The hearing repeatedly blurred the distinction between violent extremists and lawful Muslim religious and civic organizations, portraying constitutionally protected advocacy, litigation, coalition-building and civic engagement as evidence of a broader religious threat. Such rhetoric runs counter to the First Amendment’s twin guarantees of religious liberty: the Establishment Clause, which bars the government from favoring one religion over another, and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects every person’s right to practice their faith free from government discrimination.

Showing the dangers of such governmental disfavor toward a religious minority is the fact that the hearing was delayed from its originally scheduled date of May 20, after three people were killed two days earlier in a targeted attack at the Islamic Center of San Diego.

Cruz suggested that Muslim organizations must be viewed with suspicion because they file lawsuits, challenge government policies, organize on college campuses and engage in public advocacy. Those are ordinary First Amendment activities routinely exercised by religious and secular organizations across the ideological spectrum, including conservative Christian legal groups that frequently litigate against state/church protections and seek to influence public policy.

“When advocacy by one religious community is portrayed as evidence of extremism while similar advocacy by politically favored religious groups is celebrated, the government abandons the religious neutrality required by the Constitution,” adds FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. “The First Amendment protects every American’s right to petition the government, speak freely and participate in civic life regardless of their religious beliefs.”

The hearing reflects a broader trend to portray Christianity as uniquely compatible with American government while treating minority faiths as inherently suspect or less authentically American. The Framers of the Constitution were first in history to prohibit religious tests for public office and adopted the First Amendment in part to assure that our government would not elevate one faith while marginalizing others.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the model for the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, its protections extend equally to “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” The Constitution’s promise of religious liberty has always rested on equal treatment — not religious favoritism.

FFRF’s affiliated advocacy organization, the FFRF Action Fund, joined a broad coalition of religious liberty, civil rights and faith-based organizations warning that the hearing’s premise “is among the latest in a long line of attacks that are designed to sow fear and conspiracy theories about an entire religion and a diverse community for political gain.” The coalition cautioned that such attacks undermine the nation’s commitment to religious freedom for all.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee announced that they would boycott the hearing, calling it a “political creepshow” that scapegoats Muslims for political gain amid rising violence targeting houses of worship.

The government has a compelling interest in investigating and prosecuting terrorism wherever credible evidence exists. But congressional oversight must target unlawful conduct supported by evidence, not cast a cloud over millions of peaceful Americans because they belong to a disfavored faith. History has repeatedly demonstrated that when the government singles out one religion for suspicion, the religious liberty of all Americans is weakened.

“When elected officials exploit religious prejudice for political gain, they don’t just harm one faith community,” Gaylor says. “They erode the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government that protects everyone’s religious liberty. The government has no business deciding which religions are truly ‘American’ and which should be viewed with suspicion.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.

The post The real threat isn’t Muslims — it’s government religious favoritism appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Gavin Ortlund and I Disagree About Almost Everything

The Trinity Makes No Sense

Okla. plaintiffs urge federal court to uphold rejection of religious public charter school

A group of seven Oklahoma taxpayers today urged a federal court to uphold the state’s rejection of an attempt to open the nation’s first religious public charter school. The intervenors are represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Education Law Center.

At a hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, attorneys for this group of taxpayers — which includes families with children attending public schools, teachers and clergy — argued that allowing the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to operate a religious public charter school would be a clear violation of state and federal law that defines charter schools as public schools that must be secular and open to all students. Ben Gamla is seeking a preliminary injunction that would allow it to open while its lawsuit, National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation Inc. v. Shellem, proceeds. The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board rejected the school’s application, which made clear that Jewish religious teachings would be integrated into “every dimension of … life” at the school, including classroom instruction and other activities. Charter schools, like all public schools, cannot lawfully indoctrinate religion or discriminate.

The Oklahoma taxpayers who were granted intervenor status to participate in the lawsuit oppose Ben Gamla’s effort to force Oklahoma to authorize and fund an unconstitutional religious public charter school. They object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will indoctrinate students into a particular religion. The intervenors also object to public funds being diverted from their nonreligious and inclusive public schools – which already face serious resource limitations – to a religious school that plans to discriminate based on religion.

Americans United attorneys Alex J. Luchenitser, associate vice president and associate legal director, and Luke Anderson, constitutional litigation fellow, argued on their behalf during today’s hearing. In addition to opposing Ben Gamla’s request for a preliminary injunction, the attorneys argued against a request by Ben Gamla to block the intervenors from obtaining documents and other information about the school’s planned operations. The attorneys representing the intervenors also include Nancy A. Noet and Samuel T. Grover of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; Brent Rowland and Morgan Bandy of the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice; Dan Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; and Jessica Levin, Wendy Lecker, Patrick Cremin and Katrina Reichert of the Education Law Center.

“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” says Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”

“We urge the court to protect all Oklahomans’ religious freedom and affirm that this religious public charter school violates Oklahoma law and the U.S. Constitution,” says Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser. “Oklahoma public school families, Jewish leaders, and taxpayers have spoken – they want their public schools to remain open to all beliefs.”

“Oklahoma has been down this road. Our courts said charter schools are public schools, and public schools don’t teach religion — that’s still the law here, and it doesn’t change because a different faith is asking this time. Our clients want that principle applied evenly, which is the only way it protects anyone,” says Brent Rowland, executive director, Oklahoma Appleseed.

“We’re urging the court to reaffirm the time-honored, core legal principle that public schools can’t be religious and religious schools can’t be public schools,” says Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “That foundational idea has been crucial to protect both religious liberty and public education for so long, and there’s simply no reason to abandon it now.”

“It should be beyond question that every part of our public education system must be open and welcoming to all students,” says Robert Kim, executive director of Education Law Center. “Our clients are standing up for the values that define not just our public schools but our democracy as well.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious freedom advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, AU educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Learn more at www.au.org.

The Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice is a 501(c)3 public interest law firm that fights for the rights and opportunities of every Oklahoman.

Education Law Center (ELC) pursues justice and equity for public school students by enforcing their right to a high-quality education in safe, equitable, non-discriminatory, integrated, and well-funded learning environments. ELC seeks to support and improve public schools as the center of communities and the foundation of a multicultural and multiracial democratic society. Visit edlawcenter.org.

For more than 100 years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has worked in courts, legislatures, and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all.

The post Okla. plaintiffs urge federal court to uphold rejection of religious public charter school appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

FFRF takes Rep. Alford to task for calling church/state separation a ‘lie from Satan’

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is enlightening Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., after his shocking claim that the all-American principle of separation between church and state is a “lie from Satan.”

Alford, who represents Missouri’s 4th Congressional District, hosted Southern Baptist pastor and Christian nationalist activist Malachi O’Brien on a July 17 episode of “Getting Comfortable with Mark Alford.” Alford introduced the episode’s central subject as “the separation of church and state — or the myth of that.”

Alford complained that when he posts bible verses on social media, “demonic forces come out of nowhere” to criticize him because he is a member of Congress. He then asked O’Brien: “How did we buy into this lie from Satan that the church and the state have no mixture at all?” Alford portrayed President Trump as a divinely protected leader and joined O’Brien in characterizing the Trump administration’s privileging of Christianity as a national revival. He assented to various declarations by O’Brien, such as that “Christians should run their own country.”

FFRF is calling on the member of Congress to retract the historical and constitutional misinformation he spread on his podcast.

“The separation of church and state is neither a myth nor a ‘satanic’ lie,” FFRF Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker have written Alford in response. “It is a foundational American principle embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 famously coined a metaphor explaining the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by saying it erects “a wall of separation between church and state.” The fact that the phrase does not appear verbatim in the U.S. Constitution does not negate the principle it explains, FFRF notes.

Alford and O’Brien also repeated the familiar falsehood that the Constitution protects “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.” On behalf of an organization whose very name is “Freedom From Religion,” the FFRF co-presidents explain that religious freedom necessarily includes the right to freedom from religion in government.

“Your oath of office was to protect and defend the Constitution, not the bible,” FFRF reminds the U.S. representative. “You were not elected to be a pastor. Missouri’s 4th Congressional District is not your congregation.”

FFRF maintains that Americans should be disturbed that a sitting member of Congress is using his public platform to vilifying a foundational constitutional principle and encouraging Christians to seize the machinery of government — the very epitome of Christian nationalist ideology.

“The separation of church and state is not hostile to religion,” FFRF’s letter concludes. “As a member of Congress, your duty is to defend that wonderful American principle, not demonize it.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 41,000 members nationwide, including nearly 500 members in Missouri. FFRF’s purposes are to defend the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

The post FFRF takes Rep. Alford to task for calling church/state separation a ‘lie from Satan’ appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Kansas City Star runs FFRF attorney’s op-ed on recent constitutional win

FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence has written an op-ed for the Kansas City Star highlighting a recent notable Freedom From Religion Foundation victory regarding a Christian flag. 

“The fire department of the city of Diamond, Mo., was flying the Christian flag outside its station. The Christian flag represents Christianity and Christianity only, and the flag has become heavily associated with white Christian nationalism, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation (the group I work for) has pointed out,” Lawrence writes. “We sent a letter to the Diamond Fire Department requesting that it remove the flag in order to comply with the First Amendment. A public fire department has no reason to show official support for a religion, especially given that the department is tasked with serving the entire community — regardless of people’s faith or lack thereof.”

Lawrence continues the op-ed by emphasizing the importance of FFRF’s mission, and the dangers of a government entity promoting religion: 

The government has no business throwing its support behind a religion. Yet, every year, we receive complaints from community members across the country because their local governments feel the need to display support for the preferred religion of their government officials. 

There are numerous reasons why government entities should think twice before putting up religious displays. When the government promotes religion, it alienates community members who adhere to a different faith as well as those who are nonreligious. Flying the Christian flag on department property needlessly excludes those among the 38 percent of Missourians who are non-Christians, including the one in three who are religiously unaffiliated. Public services such as fire departments are meant to protect and serve the entire community, not just people who have a certain religion. Religious displays on government property like the city of Diamond Fire Department’s also invite legal scrutiny and potentially litigation. 

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Shurtleff v. city of Boston that the city violated the First Amendment in denying a group’s request to fly the Christian flag because when it adopted its flag policy allowing outside groups to fly their flags, the city created a “public forum.” But the Diamond Fire Department’s display differed from Boston’s in a significant way. Since the flags flown outside the station are apparently controlled and selected by the department, this means the flags are government speech in a government forum and the Diamond Fire Department can’t constitutionally use its speech and power to voice official approval for religion. By displaying the Christian flag on its property, the fire department clearly showed support for Christianity — and only Christianity — in violation of the First Amendment.

Lawrence finishes by reminding readers of the government’s constitutional duty: “We hope that the removal of the Christian flag allows the city of Diamond Fire Department to instead concentrate on fighting fires and protecting its community members — irrespective of which religion, if any, they believe in.”

You can read the full op-ed here.

This column is part of FFRF’s initiative to engage with pertinent national and state issues and spread the messages of freethought and nontheism to a broader audience.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members across the country, including hundreds of members in Missouri, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.

The post Kansas City Star runs FFRF attorney’s op-ed on recent constitutional win appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Virginia school district sued after repeatedly changing rules to block LGBTQ student club

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 25,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo, CashApp, or PayPal.

Subscribe now

According to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, a Virginia middle school has gone out of its way to prevent a “Gay-Straight Alliance” group from forming and meeting. At first I thought this lawsuit was just in response to a straight-up denial of the group, but the more details you learn, you realize this district has gone out of its way to make sure this particular club never meets.

The drama began last August, when a seventh grader approach a teacher at King George Middle School about being the sponsor of the club (one of the prerequisites). With that person secure, they went ahead and filled out the necessary paperwork.

But within a couple of weeks, parents began complaining on a local Facebook group and doxxed the faculty sponsor, accusing her of grooming kids and demanding she be fired.

Instead of fully backing the group and sponsor, the school board and superintendent said they would put the GSA group “on pause” while they investigated matters… even though there was nothing to investigate.

The only legal way to prevent this group from forming was to ban all student-led non-curricular groups, per the Equal Access Act… but in October, the School Board announced a different plan: They would let the principals get the say-so on any new student-led groups—and if the principal’s decision was appealed, the superintendent would serve as “final decisionmaker.” (The level of micro-managing here was beyond absurd.) They also said all new groups needed at least 10 members, something they completely pulled out of nowhere.

Even outside of that, board members argued that a GSA club would fail an “age-appropriateness” test… as if these students would gather each week to have orgies. Apparently, gathering to discuss how you’re persecuted by others is too mature, but religious clubs that meet to discuss how non-believers will be tortured for all eternity are perfectly fair game.

It was at this point that the Plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote a letter to the school board saying this delay was unconstitutional. (They never heard back.)

The school board only got worse after that.

In November, they approved a policy that only allowed non-curricular clubs at the high school level, effectively banning the GSA in a middle school. (Even though Virginia law defines “secondary” education to include middle school, meaning you can’t treat that school different from a high school…)

The irony in all of this is that the school board attempted to play things neutral… but so very clearly singled out the GSA group. At one point, middle school principal Dr. Casey Nice suggested the kids form a “PRISM Club”… which is similar to a Gay-Straight Alliance but doesn’t reference those identities. But superintendent Dr. Jesse Boyd said it was still a no-go “because it was connected to LGBTQ+ topics.“ (The students weren’t fans of the proposal anyway.)

It got worse: Dr. Nice told one of the students’ mothers that the club might be approved if it was renamed the “Kindness Club” or the “Safe Space Group,” also erasing the LGBTQ+ identities. The students refused to play along.

This is how things went for months.

Administrators kept finding new reasons to prevent the GSA from forming while still breaking the law. The middle school allowed other non-curricular clubs to exist (like Yearbook Club and Robotics Club) but refused to approve the Gay-Straight Alliance. They even approved an outdoor club that had students “skinning squirrels.” What’s the curricular tie-in for that? Who knows.

That became an issue when a “Fellowship of Christian Athletes” club tried to form but couldn’t because of the new rules… and yet, the administrators attempted to justify approval of the FCA by saying it was about leadership, which would make it “curricular.” (Bullshit.)

That’s why the ACLU of Virginia and Potomac Law Group are now suing the district.

Their clients have done everything by the book, only to have the school board and administrators serve as obstacles every step of the way.

“King George County Schools cannot move the goalposts to prevent an organization that promotes respect and equality for LGBTQ+ students from existing just because school board members disagree with its message,” said ACLU-VA Staff Attorney Julia Kahn. “The First Amendment and Equal Access Act protect all students, and the school board cannot pick and choose who the rules apply to. Why this club, and not others?”

…

“Student clubs help students build community, find belonging, and thrive, and when schools offer those opportunities, the law requires that they be available on equal terms to all students,” said Mary Rohmiller, partner at Potomac Law Group. “But King George County Schools appears to be applying a double standard to the GSA at its middle schools. The students at the heart of this case are not asking for special treatment – they’re asking for equal treatment.”

It’s such an absurd set of facts for something that probably wouldn’t have been an issue at all if they had just said yes at the very beginning—who gives a damn if angry conservative parents complain? They complain about everything, never with any justification, so why not simply ignore them?

Maybe we know the answer. According to The Advocate, this particular school board has been anti-trans for a while now:

The Advocate reported in January that the board had unanimously adopted a policy directing staff to use only the names and pronouns listed in students’ official records. The policy also restricts restroom access, overnight accommodations, and participation in sex-separated activities based on sex assigned at birth.

For now, the lawsuit accuses the district of violating the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act. The Plaintiffs include two (unnamed) students and their parents. One of the students will still be in eighth grade this coming school year, meaning this case can’t just be dismissed as moot.

What the district’s actions make clear, however, is that this was never about procedure, or “age-appropriateness,” or some distinction between curricular and non-curricular clubs. Those were excuses they invented after the fact to block the group from forming. Every time the students met one requirement, administrators created another. The goalposts kept moving. And they made clear their biggest concern was that people might recognize that there’s an LGBTQ club on campus—one where students might identify as such openly. The only option those kids were given was to make themselves invisible.

That’s why this lawsuit is such a big deal. These students are showing more integrity than the adults running their school system. They understand that renaming their club to hide who they are is nothing more than cowardice.

The King George County School Board has also made a massive and entirely avoidable mistake. Instead of following the law, they catered to the whims of a right-wing Facebook mob. This whole lawsuit will cost the district time and money—all of which could have been avoided if they just did the right thing in the first place.