Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, 240 F.3d 465 (2000) In a case similar to Fraser, a student was sent home twice for wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt with a three-faced Jesus on the back. The t-shirt also referenced biblical statements that were deemed inappropriate and disruptive to the learning environment. The court found that the school had the right to impose action for words or phrases that were considered vulgar and offensive. Just as with the Fraser case, the ethical significance is that students do not have the right to wear articles of clothing that depict messages or images in an offensive, public manner. Lower Court Cases Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, 240 F.3d 437 (2001) To reduce disciplinary action and …show more content…
After referring the student to a counselor, the student was suspended for the potential of a significant disruption. The issue with this controversial case was that the student wrote the poem from a first-person basis and the words did not present any physical harm or threat to other students. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the school district because the writing presented the likelihood or potential that a suicide could occur, which could have had a devastating and psychological impact on the school community. Melton v. Young, 465 F.2d 1332 (1972) A high school in Chattanooga, Tennessee suspended a student for wearing a jacket that depicted a Confederate flag. The school had already banded the flag prior to the student’s suspension, for fear of racial backlash. In a slim one-vote margin, the court upheld the school’s decision, solely for the possibility that racial retaliation could ensue. The student’s parents did appeal the decision, but the court deemed that this was not a violation of the student’s freedom of speech or expression. First Amendment: Relation to Current School …show more content…
To some degree, the same problems that were prevalent in the past are still found in modern day schools. Due to the governments impact of school operations, more ethical leverage is offered to principals who impose penalties or disciplinary actions for types of speech or expression that disrupt the learning environment. Even today, students are able to express themselves in a variety of ways, including writing private or political speeches, wearing clothing articles that do not reference overly offensive or sexual suggestions, and speaking in a manner that does not pose a potential harm or threat to the learning process or environment (Ramey, 2009). There are situations that were present in the past, but have become more socially acceptable. For instance, a student writing an article, essay, or research report about teen pregnancy or sexual abstinence is more socially acceptable, so the disruption of the learning environment is not as prominent. Principals and teachers have the right to censor students’ writing if it promotes acts of violence or has the potential to cause student retaliation. School
The decision was a 6-3 decision. The Justices that agreed with the ruling of the court were Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, White, Stevens, and O’Connor. The Justices that did not agree were Powell, Berger, and Rehnquist.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton case was taken in by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 1988. The case was brought up by Beth Ann Faragher, whom between 1985 and 1990, worked as a lifeguard for the City of Boca Raton, Florida. During these years, Faragher stated the two male supervisors, Bill Terry and David Silverman, performed several acts of sexual harassment against her, and several other female lifeguards. These acts ranged from sexual comments about these women’s bodies to asking them to engage in sexual intercourse with them. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the City of Boca Raton under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that an employer may only be held responsible, if supervisory employees
Jahn, Karon L. “School Dress Codes v. The First Amendment: Ganging up on Student Attire.”
Because attending school in the state was compulsory, they were forced to attend private schools, creating a financial burden for their father. The father brought a suit against the Board of Education on behalf of the children and himself. The lower Courts ruled that compelling the children to stand and salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Board of Education appealed the decision and the lower court’s ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The issue at hand is one of teacher endorsement and whether or not displaying a student’s religious work represents a personal endorsement from the teacher regarding religion or religious practices. Because the works of all students are displayed, the teacher is neither presenting nor endorsing a personal belief. If there is a concern over student interpretation of a teacher displaying the work, teachers can take an educational tact by explaining to students that a religious story presented by a student is their personal story and not a story of the teacher’s or the school, thus allowing the student’s work to be presented without violating the Establishment Clause (Ross, 2014). This piece of writing and the artwork that went with it are a personal belief to the student and represent who the student considers to be a hero, and do not represent the beliefs of the teacher or the school. Justice O’Connor explained this as an endorsement test, asking two questions: “whether government’s purpose is to endorse religion and second, whether the statue actually conveys a message of endorsement” (Schimmel, 1994, p. 16). In this case no endorsement is made because the teacher displays all student work and is in no way advancing a personally held belief. Having examined the appropriateness of displaying the student’s work, the next step is to determine how the First Amendment applies to
Censorship even extends to school dress codes. A school dress code is a set of rules about what clothing may or may not be worn in schools. As previously mentioned, a set of criteria are used to determine whether or not student expression should be censored in schools. For censorship involving dress codes, there are two: the “Tinker disruption standard” and the “forum issue,” which determine if student expression disrupts the school day and by who it is regulated, respectively (Emert). One case involving censorship of the school dress code was of a boy who violated his school’s dress code (Nguyen). Zachary Guiles, a thirteen year old boy, had to cover up his shirt denigrating former President George W. Bush, which violated his First Amendment rights (Nguyen). The shirt showed President Bush’s head on a chicken with derogatory names. It had images of oil rigs and lines of cocaine (Nguyen). A student, who had opposite views as Guiles, notified the administration of the shirt (Nguyen). Guiles was sent home on May 13, 2004, when he didn’t cover up the shirt after being asked to. The next day, Guiles’ wore the shirt, which was covered with tape and the word ‘censored’ was written on the tape (Nguyen). The school which Guiles attended, Williamstown Middle High School in Vermont, said that the shirt violated the dress code. Guiles’ parents felt that their son’s “rights to engage in political speech” were violated, and they sued the school (Nguyen). Guiles did not win the lawsuit in December 2004, when the US District Court for Vermont ruled in favor of the school, saying the images were “’plainly offensive and inappropriate’” (Nguyen). Guiles appealed, and the Second Circuit court ruled that the images were not offensive an...
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
In the 1960s, some Americans were against sending troops to Vietnam because of the many lives risked; others were against sending troops because of the money it would cost. In 1965, a group of Des Moines high school students met up and agreed to wear black armbands that following week to protest against the Vietnam War. Rumors got around to school principles. School Principals passed a rule forbidding armbands to be worn at school to prevent disruption in the classrooms. In December, five students wore armbands ignoring the school’s new rule. They were asked to take off the armbands, and they refused resulting in suspension ("Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist"). Then the parents of those complained that the first amendment rights of those students were violated. This case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that students still have their rights of freedom of speech and expression in school in a 7-2 vote in favor of Tinker (“TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT”).
Do you ever get cheated on things or get blamed for something you didn't do. Thats how students in school feel when they get in trouble for bearing the confederate flag on clothing. The school system and some students think that the confederate flag is offensive and shouldn't be aloud in school. These assertions are not correct! The Confederate flag is and should be allowed on clothing in school. The pride of the south the Confederate flag needs to be allowed to be worn on clothing in school because it is used as religion and tradition, the flag can be taken the wrong way but does not represent or mean slavery,the flag can be considered unworthy of school by the administrator
Throughout its history, the United States of America has been faced with the question of just versus unjust concerning its laws and Supreme Court decisions, as they reflect the legal standards by which people are governed. Unjust decisions can result in an injustice by prohibiting conduct that should be permitted and encroach upon the citizen’s rights. The Supreme Court of the United States is considered to be the law of the land and the decisions it makes must be obeyed. However, the Supreme Court decisions, despite being the law of the land, can be unjust as they reflect on the common sense ideologies of the time and include the final say of the majority. The ruling made in Minersville School District v. Gobitis in 1940 was unjust because it was in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and because it reflected ideologies of the majority and neglected the opinions of the minority. This decision can be negated by making the flag salute a choice that does not encroach upon an individual’s First Amendment rights.
In document D the court sided with the students, but the students must serve ten days, but the ten day suspension will not be shown on their records. It must pose a threat, there was no threat so they sided with the students.In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension.J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language.J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.This evidence helps explain why schools should not limit students’ online speech because it didn 't cause a substantial disruption.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the exercise of an individual’s freedom of speech from infringement by government; the Fourteenth Amendment extends this protection to the States and local levels of government, including public schools and universities. The Supreme Court has held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker). School officials have the authority to censor school-sponsored speech based on legitimate pedagogical concerns. The dean of students has not censored any editorials yet, but required that they be cleared by her before publication. The main issue in this case is whether there exists a legitimate reason on her part to require the clearance of every editorial. Additionally, the dean of students has warned against a planned rally to protest lavish spending. This protest is not school-sponsored speech, but student speech that occurs in school premises. In Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Sch. Dist., the Supreme Court ruled that speech must be tolerated unless it “substantially interfere[s] with the work of the school or impinge[s] upon the rights of other students.” Here the question is on the justification of the school to use disciplinary action against protesting students.
Students these days feel clothing are how they express themselves and we have to wonder if it is going to far. Kids don't even think of how stupid some clothing makes them look. One kid, who was charged with breaking and entering, went to court wearing a shirt with the grim reaper and a naked girl on it(Revisiting 1). Now how stupid is that? In another court case a girl was caught for driving under the influence. When she appeared for court she was wearing a Budweiser sh...
Many college campuses adapt the use of speech codes to shield their students from vulgar and offensive language that reside in college campuses. The typical speech codes that are used on college campuses is to prevent the use of racial, sexist, and homophobic slurs. Speech codes originated from the regulation of fighting words on university campuses. The regulation originated from the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire court case. However, this regulation was to prevent the use of offensive speech leading into violent actions. “…the doctrine as narrowed by the Supreme Court covers only speech that is likely to cause the listener to do violence…some campuses have sought to broaden its scope to include references to certain specified characteristics such as ethnicity or sexual orientation” (McGowan and Tangri 826). Speech codes on campuses not only apply to out of class events, but also in class work or assignments. In one case, a student wanted to discuss a controversial topic, but was afraid of violating speech codes. “Doe, who was also a teaching assistant, stated that he wanted to teach certain controversial theories positing biologically-based differences between sexes and races, but feared that doing so would make him liable to sanction under the policy” (McGowan and Tangri 832). This example demonstrates how the strict regulation of certain speeches affect a student’s opportunity to learn. So, why are speech codes enforced on college campuses? One of the main reasons why speech codes are enforced is to shield young adults from subjects that they could find