A federal appeals case in Oregon is drawing national attention after a public school employee was disciplined for displaying children’s books that teach biological binary gender.
Rod Theis, a licensed social worker with the InterMountain Education Service District (IMESD), faced scrutiny for showing two illustrated books, She Is She and He Is He, which provide age-appropriate lessons on male and female distinctions for elementary-aged children.
IMESD officials investigated Theis and subsequently censored him, threatened termination and alleged discrimination based on his religious beliefs and scientific views on gender.
Theis initially sought relief in district court, which largely ruled against him, prompting an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with support from the Alliance Defending Freedom.
IMESD leadership, including Assistant Superintendent and HR Director Aimee VanNice, conducted the inquiry.
During a formal meeting, Theis was asked about the content of the books and how they align with religious texts, including whether the Bible supports non-binary pronouns.
Theis maintained that the books reflect established biological distinctions between male and female children and emphasized that the material was educational and age-appropriate, according to the East Oregonian.
Critics argue that the district’s response contrasts with its tolerance for other politically or socially progressive materials.
According to reports, IMESD classrooms and offices display content supporting Black Lives Matter, LGBT advocacy and pro-immigration messages, raising concerns about consistency in staff expression policies and the selective enforcement of viewpoint restrictions.
The case unfolds against a broader policy backdrop in Oregon, Townhall notes.
In 2024, state legislators proposed a bill (SB1583) limiting local authority to remove books containing LGBT content.
While the legislation ultimately failed, proponents argued it was necessary to prevent censorship of diverse perspectives, whereas opponents warned it would eliminate parental oversight and school board discretion.
The bill reflects ongoing tensions between state mandates, local educational control, and the individual rights of school employees.
Theis’s appeal asserts violations of his First Amendment and religious liberty rights.
Legal experts note that courts must weigh employee free speech against institutional policy objectives, often balancing the protection of school climate with constitutional protections for staff.
Scholars argue that restrictions on viewpoint-specific educational materials must be narrowly tailored to avoid chilling lawful expression.
Supporters say the case highlights the difficulties faced by educators presenting perspectives that diverge from prevailing social norms.
They argue disciplinary actions against staff presenting scientifically or religiously supported content may chill lawful expression and academic discussion, particularly in public schools where educators often rely on professional judgment to guide instruction, according to Defending Education.
Meanwhile, educators and policymakers emphasize maintaining inclusive school environments while balancing staff and student protections.
The case raises broader questions about curriculum standards, parental input and the limits of employee expression in public education, particularly in regions where local boards may hold conflicting views on gender, sexuality and related content.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction, allowing Theis to display the books when students are not present, acknowledging that banning the materials could infringe on his First Amendment rights.
The injunction also prevents the district from placing negative remarks on his employment record regarding the books, a decision Theis’s legal team argues protects both free speech and religious liberty.
The appeal’s outcome may set a precedent nationwide, influencing how school districts regulate materials and safeguard employees’ constitutional rights.
