https://www.thomasmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-United-States-Supreme-Court-Declines-to-Hear-Thomas-More-Law-Center---s-Case-Challenging-School-District-Ban-on-American-Flag-Shirts.png
Date - March 3, 2014
Summary - In 2010, On Cinco de Mayo, the principal of Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill asked students wearing American flag T-shirts to turn their shirts inside out or take them off in order to keep them safe in this "climate of racial tension" . After politely being asked, the students refused to do what the principal requested. As a result, the students filed a "civil rights suit against the school and two administrators, arguing that their rights to freedom of expression, equal protection and due process had been violated" (CNN).
At Court, Judges faced the difficult question of whats more important: the student's rights to free speech or the school's safety concerns. Ultimately, the court reached the conclusion that safety concerns are prioritized.
Questions - Do you think schools should have the right to control what students can and cannot wear?
To what extent should schools be able to do so without violating our right of freedom of expression?
Name one parallel between the Tinker V. Des Moines case and this case.
Wow! I love the question about Tinker! BONUS to first one with an accurate reference, though the case does show how the court has shifted from protecting students to protecting schools.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling. Although it was indecent for the students to wear american flag shirts, schools don't have a right to control what students can and cannot wear. One of the limits on free speech includes obscenity, which is a representation or description of sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated. The line between obscene and indecent is thin, but when free speech leans more towards obscene, that is when schools can violate our right of freedom of expression. It's important to keep in mind that obscene is not the same as indecent. A similar case occurred during the Vietnam War. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the Supreme Court ruled that the school board's action violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment's protection of free expression. The Tinker v. Des Moines case is a precedent, and should treat other Free Speech cases similarly.
I disagree with the Court's ruling because it limits the First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The students were not openly targeting a specific group of people just by wearing these shirts a and were not directly threatening anyone. Although it could be considered immoral and improper what the students wearing the shirts did, it was not obscene enough to be limited. Schools should be able to control what students wear if it is disruptive, displays illegal messages/pictures, or is obscene. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court decided symbolic speech was also protected under the First Amendment and the school did not have the right to ban black arm bands that were worn in opposition to the Vietnam War. This precedent should be applied in this situation as well.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the ruling because the students weren't directly targeting a specific group or person. Although what they were doing may have been because of Cinco De Mayo, by not letting them express their feeling towards their country, their first amendment, freedom of speech right. Even if they were saying they didn't like the Latino holiday, they're legally not doing anything wrong, and those rights should be transferred into the school. It's like if someone wore a Hanukkah t-shirt during what people believe is Christmas, or vis versa. You have the right to express your believes in a peaceful manner, which is what they did. Although i wouldn't have done that myself, the first amendment should allow them to do so
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Courts ruling. Although it is the students constitutional right to wear the clothes that they choose and express themselves, It crosses the line when it effects the safety of the other students at the school and the students wearing the flag t-shirts as well. It is common for school administrations to restrict the rights of the students as we have seen in T.L.O v New Jersey. In this case, T.L.O.'s 4th Amendment right of privacy was restricted. A parallel between this case and the Tinker v Des Moines is that the students were using the clothing the were wearing to say a message bout politics and current events. But, In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the student was protesting a war that was killing thousands of Americans and was drafting young men to fight a cause that was not very clear to start with. In the case of the student wearing flag shirts on Cinco De Mayo, the students were disrespecting the history of another race and in addition were offending those around them.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the ruling. However, it is a complicated issue because this certian scenario just wouldn't appear at a school in a different community, making it difficult to establish precedents. I also feel like type of clothing and content/message of clothing are different issues.
ReplyDeleteI mainly acknowledge the Supreme Court ruling. Although what the students were doing wasn't exactly obscene or disruptive enough to warrant a violation of their first amendment rights, it was still necessary for their own protection as hostile criminal activity had been previously noted in their area and it has also been noted that a "near-violent" altercation has occurred under similar circumstances. Without the ruling, racial tensions may have risen and who knows what might have transpired. Similarly to the "Tinker v. Des Moines" case, this case involved students within the institution who used clothing to express their beliefs but in this case, the court decision was that the school had not violated their first amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, I disagreed with the appellate court ruling, thinking that asking the students to change their clothes violated their first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments. However, after a closer look, I concur with the court's ruling. In this situation, the racial tensions were very strained at this school; the CNN article told of how in the previous year on Cinco de Mayo, there was a dispute between students over the holiday and their national identities. Because of this, I believe that the court was correct in saying that in this climate of racial tension, the school's steps were made to increase student safety, a top priority. Also, however, I believe that schools need to be prudent with their decisions in how they treat the rights of their students. Clearly, the safety of the student body as a whole comes first, but sometimes the line between what is violating an individual's rights versus the group's can be fuzzy, and after careful thought, I believe that the school should be allowed to do whatever is necessary (within reason) to keep the school and its students safe, even if it means monitoring what clothes their students wear. In Tinker v Des Moines, the situation was much different because there was no history of violence at the school in speaking out against the war, and, even though both the USA shirts and the black armband were symbolic, the black armband was more peaceful, especially since there was not a direct connection to violence as the USA shirts were in this situation. Although it can be frustrating for students to have their schools' administrations monitor their clothes and how they express themselves, I believe that we students should accept this slight loss in freedom of expression to keep the student body as a whole safe.
ReplyDeleteI too agree with the Supreme Court ruling because even though the students were wearing t-shirts that portrayed a disrespectful message on Cinco de Mayo, the limiting of their free speech was in relativity to the specific case. Nornally, as long as the clothing a student's wearing isn't obscene or disruptive, schools can't limit their first amendment rights. However, considering the school's history of violence regarding Cinco de Mayo, I do believe that wearing these shirts on this specific day caused a clear and present danger to the safety of others, harming the people around them. Because their was a threat to the community, the rights of the individuals were rightly ignored. In comparison to the Tinker case, at the time, her attire in protest of the Vietnam war was seen as being obscene based on her location and the mentality of the people around her, but that was not enough for her to be ordered to change her clothes because her wearing the band did not cause any danger or disruption to the rest of the students. Her armband was not promoting violence and aggression like the students' shirts were, making this case very different in that sense. Cases like these cause a gray area questioning when our rights can and can't be limited. Because of selective incorporation, it is possible to have conflicting decisions under the same circumstances because court's have a case by case procedure to follow.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. I believe that your rights are applicable to a certain extent. Under selective incorporation, much like Erika Taylor stated, cases involving personal freedoms and liberties can vary on a case-to-case basis. In the full article, the author stated that the school had previous violent incidents on Cinco De Mayo in past years. Because of this, the school should be able to limit student's freedom of expression if it puts others in harms way. Much like Tinker, this case is involving students who wore articles of clothing that were considered inappropriate and disrespectful to the school.
ReplyDeleteTinker v DesMoines was also a case regarding a student who wears something as a mean of symbolic expression. I believe the difference between these two cases lies in the fact that Tinker's expression was not disruptive. Meanwhile, purposefully wearing an American flag on Cinco de Mayo seems to be done in hopes of inciting disruptive actions. I belive schools have a right to regulate what students wear to an extent. When regulating, schools should be focusing on ensuring the safety of the school and its students. Thus, I agree with the Court's ruling, as CInco de Mayo seems to a volatile time for this racial tension-filled school. In this case, the protection of the community from disruptive and potentially harmful expressions trumps the student's right to freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteI believe that schools should be able to control what students wear situationally. In certain areas, wearing certain things or certain colors can be extremely dangerous. When that is the case, schools should make student safety a priority and therefore be able to veto wearing offensive or otherwise harmful clothing. In situations, though, where what a student is wearing will only cause minor controversy, schools cannot uptake a dictatorship role and force students to abandon their core beliefs. If those students always wear American flag clothing, than they should be able to keep doing so every day of the year. In regards to the Tinker case, I think that Tinker holds more weight because she was fighting for political change at the time and it was much more controversial, as the whole country was engulfed in a war mindset. In all, I still maintain my stance that schools can decide on a case by case basis when to protect students from potential harm and danger, even when it does come at the cost of free speech.
ReplyDeleteI support the Supreme Courts ruling. Even though there was major controversy over students right to free speech in schools, the schools decision to forbid them to wear american flags on Cinco de Mayo was a proactive decision. Since there was history of violence and disturbance for this day, the school felt it was necessary to prevent it from happening again. In certain cases, schools do violate students right of free speech but only if it causes no harm to others and doesn't create a major disturbance, like in the Tinker case mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the Supreme Court's ruling was very reasonable in this situation. One good way of looking at individual rights and their limitations is that one persons rights end when they are affecting another person (in a negative way of course). In this particular situation, the students were obviously trying to draw attention or cause something. Most likely, they have not been wearing the american flag shirts on other days such as memorial day or fourth of july, so why would it be justified to wear it only on cinco de mayo? The courts decision to make safety the first priority of the school was a just one. I also believe that the school should be able to ban certain clothing within reason, if it is promoting bad behavior and or causing negative situations. The primary concern of the school should be the safety of the students as well as creating a comfortable learning environment, because if it can not do that, then it proves to be a useless institution. One parallel between this case and Tinker is the idea of freedom of speech and expression through clothing. However, in Tinker's case it was reasonable, whereas in this case it was not.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court's ruling was fair to make safety the first priority. There is a significant amount of racial tension between white people and Latinos at this specific school, so when the white students wore shirts displaying the American flag, they expected to get a rise out of the Latino population, jeopardizing their safety. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the students were protesting a war, which is reasonable. In this case, the students were implying that they were supportive of a terrible war and expected for Latinos to become angered, maybe even violent.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court's ruling was fair to make safety the first priority. There is a significant amount of racial tension between white people and Latinos at this specific school, so when the white students wore shirts displaying the American flag, they expected to get a rise out of the Latino population, jeopardizing their safety. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the students were protesting a war, which is reasonable. In this case, the students were implying that they were supportive of a terrible war and expected for Latinos to become angered, maybe even violent.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court's ruling was not just. The children's safety is not being compromised, they would be exposed to this clothing the minute they stepped off campus. The Supreme Court should be able to limit the freedom of speech to an extent, they took it too far in this case. I believe that schools should only be able to limit the student's clothing choice if there are complaints, they shouldn't assume anything. A parallel between this case and the Tinker case is that they were debating how schools should approach freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court's ruling was just as the clothing could have provoked violence which should be prevented at any school. I believe the supreme court should be able to speech that is disruptive and of malicious intent, but generally speaking free speech issues should be settled by the party's involved. One connection between this case and the Tinker case was that both involved students wearing what the school felt was disruptive clothing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult issue. I do not like limiting freedom of speech, but I do not like to cause tension or fights. In the case, I feel that the people wearing the shirts were in the wrong. It was not that they just happened to wear those shirts, they did it purposefully to upset the latinos and prove America is superior. It had malicious intent and was insensative. They did it to provoke, and I feel that is the issue. So I agree with the supreme court on this one. However, if they had shirts with like drugs or beer on them or something, I do not have a problem with that. I know schools limit that because it is illegal, but it is not like they are intending to hurt people or make an environment less safe. So i believe that schools should limit free speech when it is intended to hurt or disrupt safety. To relate it to Tinker, in the Tinker Case, they took away her freedom of speech because it promoted reeling against the war and was a negative statement about America. I think in that case, because it was war time, and because during war their is harsher restrictions on Free Speech that she had it coming. I think she did nothing wrong, and the punishment was way to strict, but I understand it. I saw nothing wrong with Tinker because it had no malicious intent, unlike the kids here.
ReplyDeleteSchools should have the right to limit what students can and can not wear to class in order to keep the school a safe and academic environment. However, I feel as if the US Flag should be an exception. First and foremost, The US Flag is our national symbol, A banner which all Americans can identify with. One might say that a confederate flag is a symbol, however the US Flag is an active symbol of our country and our national identity. While these students are in the wrong for deliberately choosing to wear the American Flag on a day of Mexican pride, it should be noted that the United States had no involvement with the events of Cinco de Mayo and that wearing an American flag should not have any suggested racial insensitivity. Schools should impose limits on messages on clothing instead. Clothing that directly targets a specific group or idea is far more dangerous than clothing that may imply something. Limits on clothing are also situational. Clothing limits should be imposed depending on where school is located, for example, if the school is in an Urban Area, students should not dress in a way that suggests gang affiliation. In Tinker v Des Moines, The students involved were not making explicit statements against war, but simply wearing a color that was against it. This is similar as the students in question did not make any kind of hateful comments or messages to anyone that may have been offended, but only wore their country's symbol to school.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the school was right in not allowing students to wear American flag shirts. As the article states, the school already had an air of racial tension as it had a "near-violent altercation had erupted during the prior Cinco de Mayo over the display of an American flag." Under these circumstances, the school did the right thing to protect it's students and maintain itself as an academic institution.
ReplyDeleteSchools should be able to restrict student's freedom of expression if it "incites imminent lawless action" or disrupts the academic environment.
They are both about schools limiting students' freedom of expression through clothing. The different is that Tinker did it to express her views on a political issue, while these students did it to incite anger.
The schools definitely have the right to limit what students wear if it infringes on the academic environment. The Tinker case is a clear example of this, as the armbands were disrupting the flow of class. The American flag is no different. Arguing that it's "patriotic" is ridiculous. The American flag is a symbol of America, yes, but it has evolved. I don't know how it would be disruptive at a school, but if it does, the schools certainly have the right.
ReplyDeleteThe school should have the right to limit what student wear if it is inappropriate to the school. Tinker case will be a good example of it. it is student right to protest as long as it did not affect the learning of others. I disagree cout's decision because the american flag is not a "climate for racial tension". America is a diverse country. It makes no sense that student can not wear shirt with american flag in a american high school.
ReplyDeleteThe school can limit what students can wear for safety. Schools have the responsibility to keep the environment safe and appropriate. Thus, students must give up some free speech and some freedom of expression to keep a safe environment. In Tinker's case, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to express themselves. This case did not demonstrate any danger or threat, is different from the case in discussion.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with the courts ruling. While offensive, an action like that would not cause any violence in a most schools. This means that there is a serious problem at the school between races and gangs that needs to be addressed. Ultimately wearing the clothing isn't was causes the outbreak, it is the social conditions at the school. The clothing may have caused that specific event. Instead, their free speech should have been protected, while the school takes measures to better the social environment.
ReplyDeleteI agree being that my whole elementary life was in a private school where uniforms were required. I believe that there are somethings that students shouldn't wear that can be very offensive and can hurt other peoples emotions. I believe there is an extent though where schools shouldn't be able dictate everything there students do and wear.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the school should be able to control what students are allowed to wear because it is an educational environment where students should feel safe. But on the other hand, students should still be able to express themselves and feel comfortable in school. The guidelines for a dress code should be somewhat flexible and logically altered if there is a specific incident that requires a change. In this situation, I believe that the school should have restricted their dress because of the manner of it. The students were purposely insulting the other students and being disruptive, thus the school should step in.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the school should be able to control what students are allowed to wear because it is an educational environment where students should feel safe. But on the other hand, students should still be able to express themselves and feel comfortable in school. The guidelines for a dress code should be somewhat flexible and logically altered if there is a specific incident that requires a change. In this situation, I believe that the school should have restricted their dress because of the manner of it. The students were purposely insulting the other students and being disruptive, thus the school should step in.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the school should be able to control what students wear if it's private. I'm not sure whether this school is private or public. If it's public, it's an absolute violation of rights and the school should go down in flames for it. If it's private, they can do whatever they want because they are not under the government's legislation.
ReplyDelete