Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

[TheMercenary]

Here is a great example.

Here’s the answer no administrator likes to hear: It depends.

If school officials can reasonably forecast that wearing the Confederate flag will lead to a substantial disruption of the school environment, then they can probably ban it.

For example, a 2000 decision out of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of a middle school student for drawing a picture of a Confederate flag. Why? Because the school district could point to past incidents of racial tension and violence as evidence that the flag would likely cause substantial disruption. The school’s policy didn’t target the Confederate symbol, but banned all “racially divisive” materials.

But a 2001 decision out of the 6th Circuit went the other way, finding that the school district banning the flag had failed to show that the flag would cause significant problems for the school. Moreover, the school policy appeared not to apply evenhandedly to other racially divisive symbols.

The “substantial disruption” test used in these cases comes from a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. In Tinker, students were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Ruling in favor of the students, the Court declared that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=13464

Sorry it does not support your giving rights to to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I said illegals should not have the same rights as citizens...you said the Constitution is only for citizens.

Who failed?

You did. Illegals only have limited Rights.

[TheMercenary]

The principal of Madison County High School suspended Timothy Castorina and Tiffany Dargavell in September 1997 for refusing to comply with the school's dress code.

Castorina and Dargavell wore Hank Williams Jr. concert T-shirts to school on two occasions. The shirts bore two Confederate flags on the back with the phrase "Southern Thunder."

The principal said the shirts violated the school's dress code policy, which prohibited clothing with "any illegal, immoral or racist implication." The principal ordered the students to either go home and change shirts or wear them inside out. When the students refused, he gave them three-day suspensions.

After the suspensions, the students wore the shirts again and received another three-day suspension. The students later withdrew from the school and were home-schooled by their parents.

After their suspensions, the two students sued in federal court, contending a violation of their First Amendment rights. They argued that by wearing the T-shirts, they communicated their support for Hank Williams and southern heritage.

They also alleged that the school principal discriminated on the basis of viewpoint by allowing other students to wear Malcolm X clothing.

In 1998, a federal district court judge dismissed their lawsuit, finding that their wearing of the shirts did not constitute expressive conduct under the First Amendment.

Castorina appealed the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 8, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit reversed in Castorina v. Madison County School Board.

The appeals court panel first determined that the students did engage in speech by wearing the shirts.

Next, the panel reinstated the suit, finding that the case was similar to the classic U.S. Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the high court ruled that Iowa school officials violated the First Amendment rights of several students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

In Tinker, the high court noted that the school officials singled out black armbands and allowed students to wear other symbols. The court determined that school officials could not censor student-initiated speech unless they could reasonably forecast that the speech would cause a substantial disruption of the school environment.

The 6th Circuit panel ruled that the actions of Madison County High School officials gave "the appearance of a targeted ban" because other students were allowed to wear clothing with the "X" symbol.

The judges said that the case would have to be sent back to the lower court for further fact finding, including:

How the school enforced its dress code; and
"Whether Madison County High School had actually experienced any racially based violence prior to the suspensions."
"The defendants do claim that prior to the plaintiffs' suspension, there was a racially based altercation on school grounds, but plaintiffs contend that race was not the cause of the disturbance," the court wrote. "This disagreement simply highlights the need for a trial to determine the precise facts of this situation."

Kirk Lyons, chief trial counsel for the Southern Legal Resource Center and one of Castorina's attorneys, praised the ruling.

"We were very pleased to see the 6th Circuit thunderously affirm Tinker," Lyons said. "Our concern was that various school boards were acting as if Tinker did not exist. To our knowledge this stands as the first pro-speech decision by a federal appeals court that involves a student wearing Confederate flag clothing. "

http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=13373

[TheMercenary]

Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/com...ch/tinker.html

Originally Posted by squirell nutkin

You should actually read up on what your first amendment rights are.

First, Minors do have 1st amendment rights. Second, if the school is a public school or receives funding from the government then your speech is protected. Where speech is protected is defined as a "public forum" How that forum is defined is complex. In certain circumstances a public school may not be a public forum, but I couldn't say what those might be.
Illegal speech or expression is not protected speech.
There are a number of exclusions to one's freedom of expression and hate speech or inciting to riot or exhorting someone to break the law are all unprotected speech.
Here is a pretty good summary of the First Amendment.

It's been about 15 years since I studied the topic in school, so I am a little foggy on details. Maybe I'll read the link myself.

You might make the argument that wearing the flag tshirts was inflammatory speech (therefore not protected) It is a bit ironic that wearing clothing made from or depicting the US flag, during the Viet Nam war would be grounds for a summary ass whipping while the cops made sure no one broke up the fight.

Times, they are a changin'

My point was that students first amendment rights are not absolute.

Probably the most recent case regarding student first amendment rights.....Morse v Frederick.

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) was a school speech case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, at a school-supervised event, that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.[1]

IMO, this is not a first amendment issue....and, none of us know the intent of the students.

Was it to express patriotism and freedom or was to be provocative (to the point that the administrator thought it might pose a danger) given the recent focus on illegal immigration.

[TheMercenary]

The constitution does not explicitly state or even mention minors' rights, which makes the topic debatable.

However, minors are presumed to have the fundamental natural rights (rights to life, liberty, and property), as well as 1st amendment rights (freedom of/to religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition).

But these rights come with strings attatched. For example, the manner, location, and time of speech factor into the lawfulness of violating that right. As an example, a person who yells "Fire!" in a theatre is bound to start some sort of chaotic state in the crowd. It is a compelling state interest to prevent riots, etc. from occuring, so violation of this kind of speech is constitutional.

Minors, depending on age, still do not have the legal rights to smoke, drink (as in alcohol), vote, and/or drive. On the other hand, minors cannot be sued due to parental custody.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_a...S_Constitution

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

My point was that students first amendment rights are not absolute.

No, the point is you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

When you have a cite that shows that minors, particularly in school settings, have absolute First Amendment rights......please post it.


It is not a First Amendment issue.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, the point is you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Putting words in my mouth again?

I never said that illegals or detainees should have the same rights as citizens.

And you did say that Constitution only applies rights to citizens.

You cant delete the facts as posted.

And you can run away from your own posts as much as you want....no sweat off my ass.

[TheMercenary]

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by jinx

Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray, when they were attacked in a public school for wearing their country's flag. You're good with this solution?

Why should I answer that question if you are going to word it that way. Here is a breakdown of your argument.

You say, "Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray". I don't know where this comes from. The issue was not that people have to be sent home for protection. The issue is that, for safety reasons, certain clothing should not be worn in schools. And if someone decides to wear that particular clothing, they either have to change or be sent home.

You say, "when they were attacked in a public school for wearing their country's flag." You make this seem innocent. There is reason to believe this is not true. If it was just someone innocently wearing an American flag, then I would agree with your point.


There are a few questions that we do not know that could drastically change the situation.

What was the relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population before May 5th?
Did these students purposely wear the American flag to make a statement against Cinco de Mayo?
How would the Mexican American students react against these students wearing the American Flag on May 5th?

If there was a good relationship or non-existent relationship between these student and the Mexican American student population, the students innocently wore the American flag, and the Mexican American students would not react badly (besides getting offended), then I think the decision was wrong by the school district.

If there was a bad relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population, the students purposely wore the American flag as a fuck you to Cinco de Mayo, and the Mexican American students would react violently to the shirts, then I agree with the school districts decision. Then the fault lies on both the students who wore the clothes and the people who will react violently. They both created this possible violent situation and the school district is attempting to defuse the situation in the easiest way possible.

For me, there is a lot of gray depending on the answers but I do agree that the fault does not solely with the students wearing the clothing no matter the situation. There is a lot of fault if people react violently to something like this. But I do not find fault in a school district that tries to defuse a situation like that. Because if they do not, they will be attacked for not defusing the situation after something possibly happens.

But, there is a clear difference between showing American pride by wearing an American T-shirt and saying fuck you to another culture by wearing an American T-shirt. I agree that it is sad that I have to say that last sentence but that, unfortunately, is how our world works.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Redux

Was it to express patriotism and freedom or was to be provocative (to the point that the administrator thought it might pose a danger) given the recent focus on illegal immigration.

The intent is irrelevent. This is America. They are Americans. They chose to wear pictures of the American flag to school. If the administration believes demonstrating a visible symbol for your nation can pose a threat then they need to get a fucking grip on their school.


Would it also be reasonable for this inept school administrator to tell a female student, "Young lady, you are wearing a skirt so I assume you have a vagina. You need to go home and lock your doors because your ownership of a vagina might cause someone else to behave in a dangerous manner. Now get along home little lady"?

You don't have the right to curb my rights because someone else might choose to be an asshole. If some mexican kid starts a fight, then you deal with the kid who can't deal with the idea of supporting his country. Last I checked Cinco de Mayo isn't an official US holiday anyway.

[TheMercenary]

The only question is do the students have a right to wear an American flag on their shirts to school any day of the week. All other questions are really not significant.

What if they were to wear a FUBU shirt or a Confederate Flag shirt? Does it matter? IF it does, than no one should be allowed to wear any shirt that promoted one culture or country over another.

[lookout123]

What was the relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population before May 5th?

Irrelevent.

Did these students purposely wear the American flag to make a statement against Cinco de Mayo?

Irrelevent.

How would the Mexican American students react against these students wearing the American Flag on May 5th?

Irrelevent.

If there was a bad relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population, the students purposely wore the American flag as a fuck you to Cinco de Mayo, and the Mexican American students would react violently to the shirts,

Then those who reacted violently should be dealt with as violent offenders in accordance with their actions.

Are you seriously obtuse enough to think it would be acceptable for a white administrator to send a mexican kid home if he wore a shirt with a mexican flag on it on the 4th of July? (yeah, I know there's no school in July, but you get the point)

[jinx]

You say, "Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray". I don't know where this comes from.

It came from reading your post where you explain that you know of schools where wearing an american flag would incite violence.

I personally know of schools where students would have resorted to violence or something else that would have made the situation worse.

there are schools where this would be a legitimate safety issue

These are your words and I was responding to them as I read them.