There was an earlier thread involving the same school:
Christiansburg school bans Confederate symbols from parking lot (VA)
My response at the time was: Is Tinker Meaningless Now?
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First Amendment rights.
Background of the case
In 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John F. Tinker (15 years old), his siblings Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), Hope Tinker (11 years old), and Paul Tinker (8 years old), along with their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth, elementary school for Hope and Paul) in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that school children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. The participants decided to violate this policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended from school for wearing armbands on December 16 and John Tinker was suspended for doing the same on the following day. (The two youngest participants were not punished.) Mary Beth, Christopher, and John were suspended from school until after January 1, 1966, when their protest had been scheduled to end.
....
Subsequent jurisprudence
Tinker remains a viable and frequently-cited Court precedent, though subsequent Court decisions have determined limitations on the scope of student free speech rights. In
Bethel School District v. Fraser, a 1986 case, the Supreme Court held that a high school student's sexual innuendo–laden speech during a student assembly was not constitutionally protected. Though Fraser applies the Tinker test of disruption to school decorum, if not undermining of educational mission, the effect is to make an exception to
Tinker for "indecent" speech.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, where the court ruled that schools have the right to regulate, for legitimate educational reasons, the content of non-forum, school-sponsored newspapers, also limits
Tinker's application. The Court in Hazelwood clarified that both
Fraser and
Hazelwood were decided under the doctrine of
Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association. Such a distinction keeps undisturbed the Material Disruption doctrine of
Tinker, while deciding certain student free speech cases under the Nonpublic Forum doctrine of
Perry. In
Morse v. Frederick, the so-called "Bong Hits For Jesus" case of 2007, the Court held that schools may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school-sponsored event, even those events occurring off school grounds, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In 2013, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit re-heard a case that had been argued before a panel of its judges, considering whether a charitable effort - a breast cancer awareness drive - impermissibly disrupts a middle school by distributing bracelets imprinted "I ♥ Boobies."
Here's the original article in the
Roanoke Times to which struggle4progress's post links:
Christiansburg school bans Confederate symbols from parking lot
Posted: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:00 am
By Travis Williams
travis.williams@roanoke.com
381-1643
....
School dress code bars students from wearing articles, “that reflect adversely on persons due to race (such as clothing with Confederate flag symbols), gender, creed, national origin, physical abilities, emotional abilities, or intellectual abilities.” “Signs, decals or stickers” are prohibited from placement on lockers.
The legal standard for public schools issuing such bans is based on officials being able to reasonably forecast that a particular symbol or expression will cause a “substantial disruption,” Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, wrote in an email. There is no list of accepted criteria, she wrote, but the school’s history and recent violence can be factors.
Fights, demonstrations or other disruptions are the school’s criteria for banning certain symbols in accordance with state law, {County schools spokeswoman Brenda Drake} said. The parking policy was based on “external factors,” she said. ... “There have been no protests or that type of thing,” Drake said. “In working with students on conflict issues, our staff members look at more than external factors such as race. We know that often there are deeper issues at play and we work to ensure that all of our students’ needs are met.”
Gastanaga wrote that she believes the school’s parking policy could be questioned on constitutional grounds because it applies to vehicles outside the school building, not expression inside it, and the rule’s broad language makes it difficult to know what exactly is disallowed and who would be deeming something offensive. ... “We would urge the school administration and the school board to examine carefully any broadly stated policy like Rule 11,” she wrote. ... Drake did not cite examples of other symbols that would be banned.
There is no constitutional protection against having your feelings hurt by someone else's automobile.
ETA: There is no constitutional protection against having your feelings hurt, period.
Happy Constitution Day.
= new reply since forum marked as read
