During the last Carson City School District meeting, Superintendent AJ Feuling presented proposed changes to a policy relating to “controversial issues.” Tonight, Nov. 10, 2026, Trustees will discuss adopting the proposal which places new limitations on how and when topics of controversy can be discussed — while removing the definition of “controversial.”

“There is a place for discussing controversial issues, but there is a way to discuss controversial issues in an educational environment,” Feuling said.

Specifically, the previous language of the policy said the Board of Trustees “believes that the consideration of controversial issues has a legitimate place in the instructional program of the schools.”

The new version states that the board “recognizes that the thoughtful study of controversial issues may have a legitimate educational purpose when connected to adopted curriculum, academic standards, course objectives, or current events relevant to instruction.” (Emphasis added)

While the changes might appear small at first, the difference between the words “has” and “may” could have a significant impact on day-to-day instruction.

In this case, “has” means the board recognizes the legitimacy of discussing controversial topics.

“May” means the board recognizes only the possibility of legitimacy under specific circumstances.

The current policy specifically acknowledges that some deviation from curriculum is necessary for the free exchange of ideas in classrooms.

The proposed policy removes that acknowledgment.

Freedom of Speech and Controversial Issues

The largest change in the policy is the very definition what makes an issue controversial.

In the current policy, a controversial issue is defined as a topic:

On which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion;

Likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community;

Not expressly enumerated in the curriculum guide as appropriate for the course of study;

and

Subject to interpretation as obscene, profane, doctrinaire or grossly inappropriate, each in relation to the level of maturity of the student.

Under the new policy, there is no definition provided.

In the current policy, there is one state law referenced, which has ben removed in the new policy. Specifically, that law prohibits religious instruction in public schools (exempting academic studies of world religions or similar.

During the first reading, when asked why the legal reference had been removed, Superintendent Fueling said he did not remember.

Trustee Tina Statuki clarified, “NRS 388.150 talks specifically about not being able to use religious texts in a classroom. So it was a little bit too narrowed for what the scope of the regulation as rewritten was.”

President Molly Walt questioned in that case, why there would be no statute to reference at all in the policy.

Chief Academic Officer Brandon Bringhurst said they would check to make sure it was removed correctly, or if they would need to change to “a more appropriate NRS.”

However, the policy remains unchanged for tonight’s meeting from its first reading, with no new legal citations added.

The policy’s effect on Educators

Supreme Court case law has established that when acting as private citizens, all humans on US soil have freedom of expression. However, this does not extend to individuals acting in the capacity of teachers — those boundaries have been allowed to be set by their school district since 2008.

Under the existing CCSD policy, teachers have permission to state personal opinions during the discussion of “any issue” so long as they identify it as their own personal belief and are not expressing it in an attempt to persuade students toward their point of view.

The replacement removes that permission unless it is “relevant to a classroom discussion,” and adds a requirement to maintain “professional neutrality,” though this is not defined.

The new policy also states that “Employees shall not use their professional authority to compel or pressure students to adopt the employee’s personal political, religious, or ideological viewpoint.”

The current policy states that discussions “unrelated to the goals of the Board and the appropriate curriculum guide” are prohibited. The new policy requires discussions to be “aligned with adopted curriculum, academic standards, or course objectives.”

On School Administrators

Under the current policy, if teachers have questions about discussing controversial issues and need guidance, they can receive permission from their principals.

Principals can then approve topics directly: “When controversial issues have not been specified in the curriculum guide, the Board will permit the instructional use of only those issues which have been approved by the principal in advance of instruction.”

Under the new policy, the role of the principal is eliminated.

There is also no clear chain of command for who makes a determination if a teacher, parent or principal disagrees on whether a topic serves a “legitimate educational purpose.”

A provision is added that allows the superintendent to establish administrative procedures related to implementing the new controversial issues policy if they choose.

On Students

Unlike teachers and principals, students have established first amendment rights for personal expression, and cannot be punished or limited in expressing their opinions on “controversial topics.”

Schools can implement boundaries on students. This includes limiting disruption or materials, and freedom of speech does not extend to expression that constitutes discrimination, bullying, intimidation or harassment.

Under the current policy, discussion of controversial issues must be age-appropriate or “match the maturity level of students.”

Under the new policy, this is expanded to requiring topics “serve a legitimate educational purpose,” and “be appropriate to the age, maturity and developmental level of students.”

The current policy requires controversial issues be discussed in an “unprejudiced and dispassionate manner” i.e. calmly and without personal bias.

The new policy requires providing “opportunities for respectful, civil discussion and consideration of relevant perspectives.”

Entirely new additions to the proposed policy include the requirement that students be protected from “ridicule, retaliation, or compelled disclosure of personal beliefs” and a requirement that information be accurate and sourced only from credible sources.