After an elementary school class about Martin Luther King Jr., a first-grade kid named B.B. -- I'm going to call her "Becky" -- "'felt bad' because 'black people were put in a worse position." So little Becky drew a handwritten picture showing "all her friends holding hands" and gives it to her classroom friend, M.C. (I'll call her "Mary"), for comfort. Here's Becky's picture:
Mary looks at the drawing and thanks Becky for it. In a better world, that'd be the end of the matter. A simple and undeniably well-intended interaction between two small children.
But no. Here's where the "adults" come in.
Mary's mother sees the picture when Mary comes home and writes a sharply-worded email to the school's principal saying, in part, "[m]y husband and I will not tolerate any
more messages given to our daughter because
of her skin color" and that "[a]s the administrator we trust you
know the actions that need to be taken to
address this issue."
The next day, the principal takes Becky aside, tells her that the drawing is "not appropriate" and makes Becky apologize to Mary (and, although first-grade Becky's memory is unclear on this point, maybe calls the drawing, and by implication Becky, "racist"). Becky also says that she's then prohibited from going to recess for two weeks as a result.
Then, nearly a year later, Becky's mother learns about the principal's interaction with her child, and she escalates the matter in turn, ultimately filing a federal lawsuit against the principal, the school district, and a counselor at Becky's school. There's a plethora of discovery, little Becky gets deposed, etc.
The district court ultimately dismisses the federal (First Amendment) claim and accordingly declines to resolve the supplemental state law claims, and there's an appeal. At which point yet more adults become involved.
On appeal, plaintiff/appellant is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation. Amici include many of the usual conservative lawyers seeking to advance their particular agenda: Ilya Shapiro from the Manhattan Institute, Alan Gura from the Institute for Free Speech, Madison Hahn from the YAF, Harmeet Dhillon, etc.
Does any of this actually advance Becky's welfare? I strongly doubt it. She's a first grader: a six or seven year old child. Does it really make sense to drag a six year old through a deposition, years of litigation, and the associated trauma merely to make a point about a heartfelt but overblown picture that this first grader drew to ease the perceived pain of her classmate? Again: I strongly doubt it. That's maybe in the interest of other people, including but not limited to the lawyers. But not the kid. No one should pretend that they're doing her any favors here. Not in the slightest.
But the "adults" in the room. They definitely know better.
And, today, the Ninth Circuit reverses the dismissal, in a per curiam opinion that cogently discusses the underlying legal principles but does not once mention what's best for the child, the result of which is that the underlying litigation continues apace.
Sorry about all this, Becky. Sincerely.
All of it.
