B.B., a first grader in a California school, was listening to the day’s lesson. The subject was Martin Luther King Jr and, of course, Black Lives Matter. B.B. was touched by the lesson but noted that her young Black friend, M.C., seemed sad afterward.
B.B. knew how to cheer up her friend. She grabbed her pencil and a piece of paper and drew herself with M.C. and other students, all holding hands. Her innocent message for her Black friend was scrawled on the drawing. “Any Life Maters.”
Adorable misspelling aside, her act of kindness stirred up a firestorm.
M.C. thanked B.B. for her drawing and proudly showed it to her family.
Her mother saw the drawing and emailed the school, saying she wouldn’t accept any more messages given to her daughter based on her skin color. The mother missed the memo that the lesson focused on people of color and made her daughter uncomfortable.
M.C.’s mother said she trusted the school would handle the problem. According to court documents, the principal, Jesus Becerra, reportedly talked to B.B. and said the drawing was “inappropriate” and “racist.” The first grader was punished and forced to miss recess for two weeks. She was banned from ever drawing pictures at school again.
B.B. later told her mother, Chelsea Boyle, that the school principal had made her apologize to her class. B.B. complied, although she had no idea why she was apologizing. M.C. was equally confused, telling her it was okay.
B.B. kept the incident a secret from her mother for over three years. B.B. was terrified that she would get into more trouble if her mother found out. B.B. has been living with her secret since 2021.
Boyle didn’t know about the incident until another parent from the class told her in 2023. Boyle then filed a lawsuit against the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) for her daughter because she believed her daughter’s First Amendment rights were violated.
The case turned unexpectedly darker when U.S. Central District Court Judge David Carter ruled earlier this month that first-grade students don’t have First Amendment rights. In his decision, Carter noted, “A parent might second-guess Becerra’s conclusion, but his decision to discipline B.B. belongs to him, not the federal courts.”
Carter focused on the students’ age in his decision. He explained that younger students might be more affected by messages about things like race or skin color than older students. He also mentioned that first graders are easily influenced, and if other students join in on the “insults,” it could cause even more problems and disrupt the learning for other kids.
Caleb R. Trotter, a lawyer with Pacific Legal Foundation helping the Boyles with their appeal, said he is frustrated that the school caused the problem by introducing first-graders to sensitive topics about race. He noted that B.B. responded in a friendly and inclusive way, but she was punished because her response didn’t match one side of the racial debate. Trotter also mentioned that the student who got the drawing wasn’t even offended because she didn’t realize anything was “wrong.”
Carter minimized the incident, saying that B.B. M.C. moved past the incident from three years ago. B.B. had mentioned that the drawing didn’t affect their friendship, and they’ve shown everyone how to move on from problems.
But Boyle said that her daughter hasn’t gotten over what happened and that the situation has caused serious harm to her. She explained that her daughter has had severe anxiety and panic attacks that haven’t gone away. Because of how the school and community treated them, the Boyle family left California.
Boyle also mentioned that many other families have contacted her, saying they experienced similar problems, which has motivated her to keep fighting.
Trotter mentioned that there’s a worry that other courts or school districts might see this case and think they can do the same thing because the first school district got away with it. He said the unfair punishment made this case important because of what it could mean for schools nationwide.
He added that the situation doesn’t fit with past Supreme Court decisions, and “luckily” for Chelsea and B.B., it’s not only maddening but also unconstitutional. This means the fight might make it to the Supreme Court, which will have an open-and-shut case for First Amendment violations.
