A New York City parent activist booted from her education post after calling out “Jew hatred” should be reinstated, a federal judge ruled — finding Schools Chancellor David Banks likely violated her free speech rights by ousting her.
Banks removed Maud Maron from Community Education Council 2 in June after the Manhattan mom was quoted in a Post article slamming an anonymous editorial in the Stuyvesant HS student newspaper that accused Israel of genocide.
But Maron’s removal “violated the first amendment because it discriminates based on viewpoint,” Brooklyn federal court Judge Diane Gujarati wrote in a hard-hitting ruling this week.
The First Amendment is mentioned 39 times and the word “unconstitutional” is cited 18 times in the judge’s 54-page decision granting Maron’s request for a preliminary injunction halting her ouster.
“Plaintiff Maron is entitled to reinstatement… Plaintiff Maron should be reinstated immediately to her elected position on CEC 2 for the pendency of this action,” Gujarati wrote.
“I’m thrilled our court system is holding up well to the assault on free speech,” Maron told The Post on Wednesday, adding she was “elated” and “absolutely thrilled” with Gujarati’s Sept. 3 ruling.
Maron, who has claimed she’s a victim of cancel culture, had already drawn the ire of LGBT activists and liberals in the school system for her opposition to allowing biological males who identify as transgender to compete against females in competitive sports.
Then she called out the full-page editorial published in the February issue of the Stuyvesant student paper for whitewashing Hamas’ depraved Oct. 7, 2023 massacre while accusing Israel of atrocities, including apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
“The byline should read coward instead of anonymous. If you are going to repeat revolting Hamas propaganda and transcribe your ignorance and Jew hatred, put your name to it,” Maron, a Stuyvesant parent who also serves on the school leadership team, said then.
“Principal [Seung] Yu should address the school and explain to Jewish students why this factually inaccurate bile was published on the school paper anonymously.”
Banks claimed Maron’s criticism constituted “verbal abuse” and aggressive speech in violation of the code of conduct/anti-discrimination/anti-harassment policy.
But Gujarati suggested the chancellor’s decision was a head-scratcher because Maron did not even know who the editorial’s anonymous author was and the writer was not identified.
“Notably, plaintiff Maron’s comments did not identify the editorial’s author and plaintiff Maron declares that she did not know the author’s identity, or whether it was a student, a staff member or other person,” the judge wrote.
Gujarati also found that the Department of Education appeared to violate Maron’s free speech rights because it objected to her comments.
“Plaintiffs have shown a clear and substantial likelihood of establishing that the challenged portion of Section II(D) [the regulation] facially violates the First Amendment,” the decision said.
“Plaintiffs Have Shown a Clear and Substantial Likelihood of Establishing that the Challenged Portions of Regulation D-210 are Unconstitutional,” the judge added.
Gujarati said Maron is likely prevail in her final ruling because “securing first amendment rights is in the public interest.”
The judge also barred Community Education Council 14 in Brooklyn from restricting access to its social media accounts and meetings, in violation of the law. The left-wing board’s leadership has blocked pro-Israel voices from participating in meetings.
The ruling did not reinstate the Taijh Sutton, the controversial president of CEC 14, who also was removed by the chancellor for silencing others.
In response, Banks’ spokesman Nathaniel Styer said, “Creating positive and supportive environments for our school communities is a priority for New York City Public Schools, and we are disappointed by a ruling that limits our ability to protect students from harmful conduct by parent leaders.”
But Styer also said that prior to the court’s ruling, Banks and the DOE began “reviewing the applicable chancellor’s regulation and are preparing to propose revisions and initiate our public engagement process.”
“We will also continue to support CEC 14 towards complying with its legal requirements. We will continue to review the ruling for next steps,” the rep said.
