Student makes anti-Proposal 3 announcement at Ann Arbor high school after father sues over free speech

Loading Video…

This browser does not support the Video element.

Skyline HS student allowed to make anti-Proposal 3 announcement after father sues

When Skyline High School in Ann Arbor declined to let the president of the Republican Club make an anti-Proposal 3 announcement, the student's father sued. A judge issued a temporary injunction that allowed the message to be broadcasted to students Monday.

After Skyline High School declined to let a student make an announcement against Proposal 3, a ballot proposal that would add abortion rights to the Michigan constitution, the teen's father sued.

"Took a lot of courage on behalf of the student because the student has been fighting the administration and no one was fighting the administration," the family's attorney Richard Thompson said.

A temporary injunction granted by a judge allowed the unnamed student, who is the president of the school's Republican Club, to make the announcement over the public-address system Monday at the Ann Arbor school. The student said to vote no on Proposal 3 and offered contact information for the Republican Club to learn more about how to "protect the health of women and children."

READ: Full abortion amendment proposed in Michigan

Also on Monday, the day before Election Day, a group of about 100 students staged a walkout where they led a march around the school then returned to class. Judge Paul Borman said the school couldn't allow a walkout but not allow the public-address message.

"The announcement was denied because of a political nature we felt it was a constitutional violation of free speech," Thompson said. "We found that throughout the years Skyline has been promoting all kinds of liberal ideals."

The school said it was not in line with their policy of using district resources to address a ballot proposal.

Superintendent Jeanice Kerr Swift released a statement that read in part, "We will continue to vigorously defend this case in court so that clarity in the district process in future situations is consistent with the Michigan Campaign Finance Act and other laws in ensuring the district maintains a viewpoint neutral position, without advocacy, on ballot proposals."