The Mill River Unified Union School District, under the banner of its mascot minutemen touting muskets, is now caught in a battle of its own over whether certain firearm imagery is appropriate in a yearbook photo. 

In the 2024 fall semester, the school administration denied Mill River High School student Preston Flanders’ senior picture submission for the yearbook. In the photo, he sits on a stone bench, wearing a deer skull baseball cap and holding what appears to be an “AR style rifle,” according to Superintendent Brian Hill. 

In recent months, the administration’s choice to reject the student’s photo has been the subject of repeated discussion online and at school board meetings, and has garnered the attention of national and state-wide advocacy organizations. 

Amid the ongoing controversy, a school board member and the father of the student, Nick Flanders, announced his immediate resignation from the board in an email sent Feb. 10. He cited his busy schedule and “potential legal action ensuing between (his) family and the school, and/or individual employees.”

Nick Flanders responded to an initial request for comment with an email stating that he was busy with work but he would look for time for a conversation. He did not answer subsequent requests to discuss his resignation and the nature of the legal action he mentioned his family may pursue. Efforts to reach his son for comment were not successful.

Superintendent Hill, who oversees the school district that includes the towns of Clarendon, Wallingford, Shrewsbury and Tinmouth, said on Tuesday that he was not aware of any impending legal action from the Flanders family.

Photo controversy

In a Facebook post last December, the younger Flanders expressed frustration that his original senior portrait was rejected and he was asked to submit a new photograph “without a ‘weapon’ in it.”

In the post, he listed reasons he felt he should be allowed to use the picture as his senior portrait, including that he followed the school’s senior portrait instructions and that the photo does not represent a threat to anyone at the school, as the firearm was “unloaded, safety on, pointing in a safe direction.”

“I enjoy hunting, fishing and shooting sports. Why are some students granted the privilege of posing with a vehicle, sporting equipment, or pet. … Yet my photo is denied?” he wrote. “I feel as though I (am) being misrepresented and excluded as a minority group who enjoys shooting sports.”

Hill said that the administration rejected the photo because the school had concerns that the imagery would contradict its goal of promoting a safe environment. 

The school district has previously permitted firearm imagery in other school spaces based on contexts, Hill said, offering the example of student artwork depicting hunting. However, the AR style of the firearm identified in Flanders’ yearbook photo submission factored in the administration’s decision not to publish the photo, he explained.  

School staff looked through archived high school yearbooks dating back decades, and could not find an example of a photograph depicting a student posing with a firearm, according to Hill. 

The photo submission has drawn national scrutiny as The One in Five Foundation for Kids — a student violence prevention advocacy group founded in response to the elementary school mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas — weighed in on the local controversy in a press release in January. 

Foundation representatives said they were “incensed” after learning of the photo submission and applauded the school’s decision to remove the photograph. The school would “face protest” if the administration’s decision was overturned, according to the foundation’s press release. 

Editorial control

At a Jan. 22 school board meeting, Preston Flanders spoke during public comment, stating that he was unaware of any guidelines he had violated in submitting the photograph and that he believes the school’s rejection of the photo violated his constitutional rights. 

“​​What shocked me most was when I was told that my photograph would reflect negatively on the school staff and cause trauma to those viewing it,” he told the school board. “This could be considered bullying or even harassment, although, after further review, this is actually a violation of my 14th Amendment rights, where the school and the board has not provided me with equal protection or due process.”

Preston Flanders said that the school board should adopt a freedom of expression policy that “does not restrict students’ speech as far as the law allows,” according to materials he read from the Student Press Law Center, a national nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights and freedoms of student journalists — or in this case, yearbook editors.

Jonathan Gaston-Falk, a staff attorney with the Student Press Law Center, said in an email that Vermont education law requires local school boards to pass written school policy on student journalists’ freedom of expression in accordance with the state law.

According to the 2017 education law known as Vermont New Voices Law, the authority to decide whether to publish the photo should rest with student yearbook editors, not the school administration, Gaston-Falk said.

Student journalists — including yearbook editors — hold “editorial control” over the decision to use media including photographs in school-sponsored publications, except in situations of unprotected speech, he said. 

“The ‘jury is still out,’ so to speak, as to whether the editors of the yearbook ultimately still want the subject image published,” Gaston-Falk said in the email. “If they do, they are able to assert their publication rights under Vermont Law.”

But, Hill said the high school’s staff are responsible for identifying if yearbook senior portrait submissions are appropriate before any students are granted access to photos.  

While there are Mill River High School students who aid in the creation of the yearbook, Hill said he is not aware of any student yearbook editors who are calling for the photo to be published. 

Practices vs. policy

While the staff have a long-held practice of vetting yearbook photos, Hill said the debate over Flanders’ photo indicates a gap in written school policy regarding yearbook submissions. 

“For a long time, we have looked at submissions for the yearbook to make sure that they’re school appropriate,” Hill said. “Going forward, we discussed putting in place much clearer written procedures around what that actually means.”

At the school board meeting on Jan. 22, Nick Flanders spoke as parent and community member during the public comment period to urge his fellow school board members to consider the photo submission process for the yearbook. He asserted that the board has “failed the students” by not providing “clear guidelines and policies.”

Later that night, the board discussed the yearbook photo issue in executive session, but agreed to hold with the administration’s decision to reject the photo submission, as to not override the school administration’s authority, according to the meeting minutes.

Andrea Hawkins, the school board chair, said the board has already initiated discussion about codifying the school’s practices for vetting yearbook photos in the future, and sent the issue to the board’s policy committee for consideration. 

Conor Casey, executive director of Gun Sense Vermont, said that the organization stands with the school administration’s position on the student’s yearbook photo submission, asserting that firearms do not “belong in school spaces,” including in school publications. 

Casey added that imagery depicting firearms represents a tangible threat to students, noting that firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the country. 

“It’s completely appropriate and within the rights of the school to restrict imagery that features or potentially glamorized firearms,” Casey said. “Schools should be environments where students feel safe, and I really believe normalizing firearm imagery in school publications would be sending the wrong message.”