Student Sues School over Punishment for Wearing "Homosexuality is Shameful" T Shirt

[astro]

Although the T shirt is obnoxious. does this student really have any kind of a valid 1st or 14th amendment case?

California Student Sues School over Punishment for wearing “Homosexuality is Shameful” T-Shirt

LOS ANGELES, June 3, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal civil rights lawsuit filed today charges that the Poway Unified School District violated the constitutional rights of a student and censored his free speech. The school district threatened further punishment and suspended the student for expressing his religious faith on a T-shirt during a school day designated to promote homosexuality. A school administrator told the student to “leave his faith in the car” when his faith might offend others.

“In this age of alleged tolerance, such a statement is disappointing, to put it mildly,” said Robert Tyler, counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. “Public school students don’t surrender their First Amendment rights when they enter the building. When are public school officials going to learn they are not allowed to silence constitutionally protected student speech just because they disagree with the student? This is unconstitutional suppression of speech and an illegal suspension from school.”

The homemade lettering on the front of the T-shirt read “Be Ashamed” and “Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned.” The back of the shirt read “Homosexuality is Shameful” and “Romans 1:27.”

Harper v. Poway was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. ADF represents Chase Harper. Harper refused to compromise his religious beliefs and First Amendment rights and was suspended for simply wearing the homemade message on his T-shirt during the so-called “Day of Silence” sponsored by the school district’s “Gay-Straight Alliance.”

“This arbitrary and unconscionable punishment violates our client’s rights to freedom of speech, his free exercise of religion, and his right to equal protection of the law guaranteed to him in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,” Tyler said.

[Revtim]

I have no cites, but don’t these cases usually end up favoring the school, because they are ruled to have a right to “keep the peace”?

[rjung]

And aren’t minors and students limited in their rights to begin with?

Now, an adult wearing the shirt, that’d be a different kettle of fish.

[Abbie_Carmichael]

I seem to recall studying a case that ruled that school boards can censor clothing if it is deemed to potentially cause a dangerous situation (a riot?).

Being told to “leave your faith in the car,” is mighty innerestin’, though. I’d love to see the uproar if the school district told a gay kid “leave your sexuality in the car” if he/she showed up at school wearing a shirt that advertised that they were gay.

And what is a school district doing allowing a pro-homosexuality day at school anyway?

I don’t get it. We want our kids to be tolerant and not kill each other, right? It’s not like when these kids grow up that they will suddenly stop wearing their faith/sexuality/whatever else on their sleeves. Maybe if we let kids wear whatever they wanted to school, everyone would become desensitized and not so quick to get “offended” over a friggin’ cotton t-shirt. Let the gay kids wear their shirts. Let the Christians/Jews/Muslims/whoever wear their stuff too. By the time these kids are seniors they’ll be able to look at the most offensive shirts out there, yawn, and still sit at the same table at lunch.

[silenus]

This one could go either way. The courts have established that A) Schools have the right to restrict apparell that could cause disruption, either through message or the way it is worn; and B) That students do not lose their right to Free Speech when they are in school.

I’m sure Tinker v Des Moines is going to get cited a lot during this case.

If the school did officially sponsor the “Day of Silence” then the student will win. If the school did not officially sponsor it, then the school will win.

Isn’t this the same school district that had an Assistant Principal lifting the skirts of female students at a dance last year to see if they were wearing thongs? :eek:

[treis]

Here is a farily recent thread about a similair topic. In my opinion is if they don’t punish the people participating in the Day of Silence for disrupting school they shouldn’t punish the kid for wearing his shirt.

Here is a link to Romans 1:27

[quote]
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. [/qoute]

Nothing there that could be considered intimidation, harassment or a threat.

[Zagadka]

Two questions.

1. Would you allow someone to wear a t-shirt that said “Being Asian is shameful”?

2. Would you allow someone to wear a t-shirt that said “Christianity is shameful”?

[Mockingbird]

@treis

Nothing there that could be considered intimidation, harassment or a threat.

Really?

If the kid in question had been back in the 1950s and had worn a shirt that claimed Interracial Marriage is Shameful and had bible verses on it, would that have been acceptable to you too?

[treis]

Heres what I said in the thread I linked

Either it is acceptable for students to express their opinions on homosexuality or it isn’t. If the school is allowing students on one side to express their opinions the other side should have an equal chance to express theirs. According to www.dayofsilence.org the purpose of the day of silence is:

“a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment – in effect, the silencing – experienced by LGBT students and their allies.”

In my opinion by saying that they are protesting anti-LGBT bias they are claiming that being LGBT is acceptable. Therefore if schools are allowing the day of silence they should allow the opposite view point to be expressed. Schools should not take sides on issues. They should only decide which issues do not belong in schools.

I personally don’t think that the shirt is acceptable to wear anywhere. However if schools are allowing one side of a debate then they need to allow the other side of the debate to express their opinions.

Zagadka:

1. Race superiority debates are not allowed in school so this shirt is no good.

2. It would have to depend on what the schools policy is on religious shirts. If they allow prosterylzing type then this shirt is fine. If they don’t allow prosterylzing shirts then this shirt wouldn’t be acceptable.

[Blalron]

If both sides have the right to express their viewpoints in school, does that mean that if there’s a racial tolerance day, students who oppose tolerance can wear White Power t-shirts?

[Zagadka]

Well, this is the question.

Saying something is shameful or wrong can be said to be hate speech.

Is saying something is right or good (or acceptable) hate speech?

[1010011010]

I wonder… you think the Fellowship of Christian Athletes could get a “Day of Silence” at the school for all the aborted fetuses?

Not that I think that particular entanglement would be more appropriate than a day of silence sponsored by the GSA. I think the most effective way to “keep the peace” would be for school districts to teach kids about math, science, literature, etc. If you don’t endorse days sponsored by groups some people find offensive, you don’t have them making responses to that endorsement that other people might find offensive.

Zagadka, I’d allow both if they were worn on Asian Pride Day or God is Groovy Day.
If someone was just wearing them for giggles and not in response to something I was sponsoring/endorsing as a school official? Then I’d send them home to change.

[Zagadka]

@1010011010

Zagadka, I’d allow both if they were worn on Asian Pride Day or God is Groovy Day.

As I understand it, the day was to speak out for people who were being oppressed, not to express gay pride. There is a distinct difference between the two, and expressing sympathy for oppressed people is not the same as endorsing their cause.

[treis]

@Zagadka

Saying something is shameful or wrong can be said to be hate speech.

Well I guess you could say that but it would be wrong. Err can I say that? I don’t want to use any hate speech.

[Zagadka]

@treis

Well I guess you could say that but it would be wrong. Err can I say that? I don’t want to use any hate speech.

SO you wouldn’t consider “Being black is shameful and wrong” to be hate speech?

[treis]

I don’t really see how you can say being black is wrong but no I don’t consider it hate speech. You consider someone saying “Jews are wrong Christ is the savior” or something along those lines to be hate speech?

[Eve]

I am highly dubious of any link that states, “The school district threatened further punishment and suspended the student for expressing his religious faith on a T-shirt during a school day designated to promote homosexuality.”

“A school day designated to promote homosexuality?” What the hell is that supposed to mean? School-mandated circle-jerks? I seriosuly doubt the school was trying to force its entire student body to “catch the gay,” as the link implies.

[spingears]

We tolerate everything but intolerance!

[beagledave]

Another source here

Poway High’s dress code, which is given to each student at the beginning of the year, states that unacceptable dress includes clothing that promotes or portrays “violence or hate behavior including derogatory connotations directed toward sexual identity.”

The district’s policy on freedom of speech and expression recognizes students’ rights to express ideas and opinions through their speech, writing and clothing, but cautions against anything that would “incite students so as to create a clear and present danger … of unlawful acts … or of the substantial disruption (of school).”

<snip>

Jordan Budd, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego, said Harper’s case may have merit. “The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard.”

As long as Chase’s T-shirt did not substantially disrupt activities, he had a right to express his political or religious beliefs, said Budd. He said the T-shirt could not be construed as harassment because harassment has to be directed against a particular individual.

Is the ACLU right or wrong?
oh…and lovely quote from the school administration

According to the lawsuit, Chase was questioned by a deputy sheriff, while he was being detained, and by assistant principal Ed Giles who told him he must “leave his faith in the car” if his religious beliefs are offensive.

[tomndebb]

If the school has a policy prohibiting “political” speech (or, safer, any speech) on clothing, the school has a chance.

If the school opposes the shirt for being “disruptive,” then I think the school is copmpletely out of line. None of the stories that came out at the time of the incident mentioned any student response to the T-shirt(s). The only reaction was by the administration. Since the student actually wore two shirsts over two days without reaction, I would have to say that the administration over-reacted. It may be a rather silly bit of offensiveness, but it does not call for removal or suspension.

Lots of views (and legal citations) showed up in the 5-page School allows speech on one side of an issue and not the other - Homosexuality last April and May. (Various Right-wing or Religious-Right papers and web sites couched the reports in language highlighting it as religious persecution, but the facts of the case still indicate a power-heavy administration trying to keep the kids in lock step.) I doubt that any true religious persecution was intended–just that a typical, harried assistant principal decided to head off any conflict early–and chose a particularly bad way top accomplish it. (The “religion in the car” comment was particularly stupid, but we don’t know what sort of nonsense sermonizing the kid had been spouting before the A.P. (foolishly) reacted.)