The past two years have seen a proliferation of state laws that restrict how race may be discussed in public schools. Among other topics, these laws commonly ban presentation of the viewpoint that the U.S. government—or legal system—is racist. But such policies raise important First Amendment questions: while it is well accepted that school boards and state legislatures retain great discretion to promulgate curricula, the exact scope of that authority is unclear. The Supreme Court case most closely related to this question, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, addresses only when school districts may permissibly regulate student speech in curricular contexts. Hazelwood does not resolve the antecedent question of whether local educational authorities may constitutionally constrict the range of permissible political viewpoints in curricula. 

This Comment argues that existing doctrine supports recognizing a student right to be free from political orthodoxy in public education. It proposes a burden-shifting test for vindicating that right. First, courts should evaluate whether curricular decisions restrict discussion of political viewpoints. Second, the government should have the opportunity to show that the restriction serves a legitimate interest, in part pursuant to the test laid out in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Finally, plaintiffs should be able to prove that the government’s restriction was based on impermissible animus. This Comment concludes by arguing that certain provisions in recently passed critical-race-theory laws should be considered unconstitutional because they restrict political discussion without legitimate justification.

在过去的两年里，限制在公立学校讨论种族问题的州法律激增。除其他主题外，这些法律通常禁止提出美国政府或法律制度是种族主义的观点。但是这样的政策引发了重要的第一修正案问题：虽然人们普遍认为学校董事会和州立法机构在颁布课程方面保留了很大的自由裁量权，但该权力的确切范围尚不清楚。与这个问题最密切相关的最高法院案件，Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier，仅在学区可以允许在课程环境中规范学生演讲的情况下进行处理。Hazelwood 没有解决以前的问题，即地方教育当局是否可以在宪法上限制课程中允许的政治观点的范围。 

该评论认为，现有学说支持承认学生在公共教育中摆脱政治正统观念的权利。它提出了一个负担转移测试来证明这一权利。首先，法院应该评估课程决定是否限制了对政治观点的讨论。其次，政府应该有机会证明限制符合合法利益，部分根据廷克诉得梅因独立社区学区案中规定的测试。最后，原告应该能够证明政府的限制是基于不允许的敌意。该评论最后认为，最近通过的批判种族理论法律中的某些条款应被视为违宪，因为它们在没有正当理由的情况下限制了政治讨论。