Offensive speech? What would Tinker say?
The Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that high school students do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. Student are allowed to express themselves politically (in Tinker, it was with a black armband to protest Vietnam) at an American public high school.
That’s not to say that students have complete first amendment protections. Students may not cause a distraction to learning, nor can they use profanity, or reference drugs or alcohol.
High school students are allowed to express themselves politically.
Do school uniforms rob them of that right?
State courts have ruled that uniforms are acceptable. However, in the spirit of Tinker , students in New Jersey decided to test the first amendment. To protest the school uniform policy, two students decided to wear buttons featuring a picture of the Hitler Youth.
According to the Associated Press, the buttons bear the words "no school uniforms" with a slash through them superimposed on a photo of young boys wearing identical shirts and neckerchiefs. There are no swastikas visible on the buttons, but the parties agreed that they depict members of Hitler youth.
Outraged? The school was, threatening suspension if the boys didn’t remove the buttons.
A federal judge certainly wasn’t outraged. He sided with the students, writing that a student may not be punished for merely expressing views unless the school has reason to believe that the speech or expression will 'materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.'"
Are these buttons a distraction? Are they political? Do they satisfy the Tinker requirement?
posted by CitizenPatriot at 11:44:00 AM
6 Comments:
I love when judges creates standards and tests that measure something based upon whether it "materially and substantially" disrupts the work and discipline of the school. If somebody could please point out to me a great disruption versus a material and substantial disruption, I would be most appreciative. I guess it's just like profanity - you'll know it when you see it.
3:10 PM
huck,
great disruption- the person's fault who is wearing the shirt
material disruption- other people's fault for choosing to be distraction.
i think
7:48 PM
I think school uniforms are sexy.
:)
10:59 PM
I am all for student freedoms, with my bias of being a student. I hate how many rights leave us as we enter campus - it's fair, but unpleasant.
Huck,
The school decides to publicly state "we do not like chickens very much" and in protest you may
a) wear a button that says
"CHICKENS!
=]"
or
b) wear a chicken costume
(a) is my first amendment rights in motion, (b) is obnoxious and distracts other students - wasting 5 minutes of class time for everyone to comment, "you are in a chicken costume. O_o *drool*"
10:04 PM
Miji - I appreciate your response to my concerns. However, this exemplifies my concerns over allowing one person (generally judges, but in this case yourself) to decide that wearing a chicken costume is "obnoxious and distracting." There are others who would certainly argue that this is merely a higher form of protest. There obviously isn't a right answer here, which is what makes this curious standards of "materially and substantially" so difficult to digest.
9:29 AM
All though I do love no uniforms, lets be realistic! Uniforms are a smart way to go. Some may argue that is communist-esque or tyrannical, but studies reveal that uniforms do have beneficial outcomes. Not only does it remove social stress, but also allows those horn-dog, democratic (get it Elbaum!) teenagers to stay focus on the math and not on the girls breasts two rows ahead.
10:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home