The Mesa Public Schools Governing Board voted Thursday to eliminate its prohibition on "personal attacks" during public comment periods, replacing it with a policy that allows speech "without regard to viewpoint." The change came after the Goldwater Institute challenged the previous policy in an April letter, arguing that selectively banning negative comments while allowing praise amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The board's updated policy explicitly commits to viewpoint neutrality and defines disruptive conduct in concrete behavioral terms rather than content-based restrictions.
The original policy banned "personal attacks on Board members, staff, students, or members of the public" during board meeting comment periods. Under that framework, any negative comment directed at a board or staff member could be shut down regardless of how factual, measured, or accurate the critique was, while parents and community members remained free to praise those same officials. The new policy now states that "the Governing Board permits public comments without regard to viewpoint, including criticism, praise, or neutral observations concerning matters within its jurisdiction." It defines disruptive conduct as specific behaviors like speaking out of turn, exceeding time limits, yelling, interrupting, or inciting actual disruption of the meeting, rather than targeting the substance of what speakers say.
According to Goldwater Institute Senior Staff Attorney Adam Shelton, who wrote the April challenge letter, "a policy that restricts speech based on viewpoint is an assault on both the idea that the First Amendment stands as a shield to protect Americans and our collective decision as a country that individuals possess an inalienable right to speak and think freely." The report explains that school board comment periods function as limited public forums, where governmental entities can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech but cannot restrict speech based on the speaker's viewpoint. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that viewpoint discrimination is so severe that the government must nearly always avoid such regulations, the institute notes.
The constitutional problem with banning "personal attacks" runs especially deep in the school board context because such policies undermine the core purpose of public comment periods: educating the board and community about residents' concerns. If a parent has a grievance about their child's math teacher's teaching style, for example, it would be hard to adequately explain the problem without referring to the teacher by name or role. The previous policy effectively silenced critical speech while amplifying positive speech, creating what the First Amendment explicitly forbids—an orthodoxy in thought or speech enforced by government power. Public comment periods exist to give parents and community members a voice in decisions that directly affect their children and tax dollars, and content-neutral rules are the only constitutionally permissible way to manage those forums.
The Mesa school board's revised policy resolves the constitutional violation by anchoring restrictions in observable behavior rather than speech content. By defining disruption as measurable actions—yelling, interrupting, exceeding time limits—the policy creates clear boundaries that apply equally to all speakers regardless of whether they're praising or criticizing officials. The change preserves the board's ability to maintain order while protecting residents' constitutional right to voice concerns, including pointed criticism of specific board members or staff, as long as speakers follow procedural rules. That's exactly what the Constitution requires, and it ensures public comment periods can serve their intended democratic function.