Week 11 Text Response

“A Little Civility, Please” written by Mark Davis discusses how far freedom of speech can go. Davis agrees that schools have the right to ban certain clothing that is disruptive in their language. For example, a Tshirt that has a picture of Bush with the words “international terrorist” on it can be banned. He also makes the point, however, that in the outside world, there are places and times that these matters can be discussed. (Argument! 343-344)

I agree with Mark Davis. Davis did not give much evidence from the government in why this should be the case, though. In other words, there was no formal document addressed that lists what makes these practices right or wrong. Why does a school have that right? Why does a person have the right to have those opinions outside of school? He did touch on the Tinker v. Des Moines case, but not in extreme detail.

I will explain the Supreme Court cases that ultimately decided the school’s right to monitor clothing and speech.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is the first case. In this case, a student wore a black armband to school to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. The student was sent home because of a recent rule banning armbands. This case was brought to court; it was ultimately decided that the school violated Tinker’s First Amendment rights. This is because the armband did not disrupt learning and did not interfere with school activities. This case does not show that the school has the authority to send them home, but it was the first school dress code rule established the Supreme Court.

In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a student gave a speech that contained graphic and sexual metaphors there were directed towards another student. The student was suspended because he violated a school disciplinary rule. The Court held that the school was constitutional in suspending the student because “vulgar speech” and “lewd conduct” goes against the fundamental values of public school education. Because public school education is part of the state, the state holds authority, and suspending the student is constitutional.

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the power of the public school was expanded. The Court concluded that educators were not infringing on the student’s First Amendment rights by monitoring style and content of student speech as long as it related to actual teaching concerns. Although the students still had freedom of choice in what they wore, wrote, or said, the school had the final say. This case expanded the authority of the school by allowing the regulation of any “school sponsored” activity. This could be used in a dress code instance.

                                                                  

Poster-D13c.jpg

Mark Davis says that “T-shirts can be nixed if they are-here’s the tough word-disruptive…an atmosphere that fails to preserve a sense of order and decorum sends the message that various other behavioral extremes might also be tolerated. That is bad. An armband is one thing. Hate speech, even under the guise of political discourse, is quite another” (Argument! 343). This concept is seen throughout the Tinker vs Des Moines, Bethel School District v. Fraser, and Hazelwoods v Kuhlmeier cases. It is most directly seen by in the Kuhlmeier case as it allows the regulation at any school sponsored activity. I would say regulating hate speech on Tshirts at school falls under that category.