MADISON, Wis. – The Madison, Wisconsin school board recently banned students from wearing clothing with Native American logos and caricatures, including sports teams logos and mascots.

Madison School Board members approved a policy that states students cannot wear “clothing with words, pictures, or caricatures based on negative stereotypes of a specific gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or disability.

“Students may not wear shirts, hats, or other attire depicting Native American team names, logos, or mascots,” according to the policy cited by The Cap Times.

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

The ban comes after Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill in 2013 to require schools to file a petition with 10 percent of a district’s student population with the Department of Administration if they want to ban a mascot or logo as offensive.

A previous law triggered hearings by the state Department of Public Instruction on race-based mascots after a single complaint. A three-year fight at Mukwonago High School over its Indian mascot resulted in the school switching to the “fast Ms” – which is basically the letter M made to look like it’s moving, Fox 11 reports.

Ironically, Madison schools has a Black Hawk Middle School, and some board members were worried the new policy would require a name change, or prohibit students from wearing school shirts.

The district’s Title IX Indian Education Program coordinator Tim Fish assured them Black Hawk Middle School and its associated school attire would not be impacted by the policy.

Board member Mary Burke, who lost to Scott Walker in the most recent election for governor, didn’t seem sure what to think about the proposed policy, stating at one point during the board’s May 11 meeting that it seemed unnecessary, and pointed to examples of consensus on logos, such as Florida State University and Seminole Nation, Cap Times reports.

“I think this is going further than what we need to go to make sure we are not having an environment disrespectful,” Burke said. “It’s a question of whether students feel their rights are being impinged upon.”

MORE NEWS: How to prepare for face-to-face classes

She later joined her fellow board members in unanimously approving the policy after Gabriel Siaz, a member of the Native American Student Association that spawned the idea, cut her argument down to size.

“We in the Madison Metropolitan School District need to represent the 11 tribes within Wisconsin and their wishes, and those tribes do not wish to be represented in a way that they deem offensive,” Siaz told board members at a May 18 meeting. “It does not matter what people in Florida think or people in Chicago think about what offends them. It matters what people here think.”

And Siaz said people there think Indian mascot logos hurt their feelings.

“The existence of these mascots destroys our self-esteem,” he said, according to the news site. “They show us how people really think of us. You don’t think of us as a people who have a complex history, you don’t think of us as 562 federally recognized tribes. You think of us as redskins.”

The new policy will undoubtedly raise questions about what types of Indian mascots or logos are “based on negative stereotypes” and which aren’t.

Students who support the U.S. Army’s 2^nd Infantry Division presumably could not wear clothing with the group’s Indianhead insignia, despite the fact that its soldiers have protected Americans’ right to free speech in virtually every war since World War I.

The unit also serves as the first line of defense against North Korea.

And perhaps more importantly, the new Native American policy in Madison prompts the same questions about free speech raised by Walker when he approved the 2013 legislation on Indian mascots.

“If the state bans speech that is offensive to some, where does it stop?” Walker wrote in a letter to tribal leaders, according to the Cap Times. “A person or persons’ right to speak does not end just because what they say or how they say it is offensive.”

It’s unclear how the 2013 law jibes with the Madison policy.