Whatever way you take this:

• 1. A way to be able to remove anything that is deemed “offensive”, “unpopular”, or “unpalatable” and a good option
• 2. A way to ensure conversations critical of entrenched interests and dominant practices are censored and don’t take place

It seems hopelessly broad attempt to shape discourse and thought. Even giving administrators the benefit of the doubt and saying this policy was created so if someone puts a swastika on their door they can take it down, it also means that anything someone claims is political could be removed. As we’ve seen in the last 10 years, is there anything that can’t be politicized with enough money thrown at it? With this policy, if a history or biology teacher put “vaccines save lives” poster on their door, someone could say it’s political and offensive. Giving extremists the opening to say something is “political” means that they could say, “Oh your LGBTQ poster is offensive and political to me”, and it would be hard to make a case that would stand up under this crap policy that sexuality hasn’t been politicized and that is should stay up to support diverse students. Hasn’t diversity itself been politicized? The administrator’s comment that “LGBTQ flags are ok because they support groups that have been marginalized” is 100% correct, but I don’t think they’re really working through how “political” and “personal” are so broad anything could be attacked and claimed “offensive”, “political”, or “personal”. What if there was an educational poster about climate change? Economics? History? How, in any universe, could you have those discussions without broaching potentially “political” items?

TLDR; policy thought up by 5-year-olds who apparently haven’t been watching the attacks on school boards, policies, postings and education elsewhere to understand where it will lead. Support your teacher’s unions, the administrators leading them are scared of conflict and open dialogue and we can’t educate without them.