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.
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
Fraser's father brought action against the school board in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. He alleged the suspension and punishment were a violation of his son's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The father sought injunctive and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. of 1983. The district court awarded the student $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation costs and attorney's fees, and ordered the school district not to prevent the student from speaking at the commencement ceremonies.
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
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”).
“Marvin L.Pickering, a high school science teacher in Illinois wrote a letter published in a newspaper denouncing the board of education's choice of allocating of funding between athletics and academics, he also criticized the superintendent who did not inform the local taxpayers why they were actually paying more for the school. After posting the letter, the high school teacher was fired because the board claimed that he delivered false information that could affect the efficiency of the school administration, it damage the reputation of the board of education and of its superintendent and that it could possibly encourage “controversy, conflict, and dissension” between the school staff "Detrimental to the best interests of the schools"(Findlaw.com, I) . Pickering decided to sue the school for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and of equal protection because he claimed that he has the right to free speech and is allowed the same rights as everybody else.“
It was irrational for these students to be suspended from the school. The high school students named John F. Tinker, who was fifteen-years-old, John’s younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, who was thirteen-years-old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, who was sixteen years old, should not have been suspended. They were under the protection of the First Amendment. The parents of those students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expressions and sought an injunction to prevent the school from decupling the students. The Supreme Court of the United Sates stepped in and the question of law was if. They ruled in the favor of the Tinker’s because it was in a seven to two decision "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District."
"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
Jahn, Karon L. “School Dress Codes v. The First Amendment: Ganging up on Student Attire.”
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
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.
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...
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.
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.