barragankiara_119313_10270088_Barragan Kiara Draft Opinion
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by EarlRhinoceros2536
Kiara Barragan
Jennifer Pahre
Law 301 27 October, 2023
Draft Opinion Paper I.
Introduction
The debate surrounding the right to express oneself has been a persistent and evolving discussion, particularly when it comes to interpreting the First Amendment
, especially
within the
boundaries of the school system. This ongoing discourse has given rise to a multitude of issues over the years. In 2020, a case emerged in court that questioned the limits of the First Amendment. In this matter, two students read studies about other students who have committed suicide as a result of being bullied, which resulted in the students’ wearing pins on their shirts and baseball caps to raise awareness. As they wore this to school, other students approached the two students and sparked conversations, which resulted in a few of the students being several minutes late to class.
For the reasons set below, this court Court finds that the two students should not have been suspended for wearing the pins and baseball caps; the students did not engage in disruptive conduct beyond the range of peaceful communication through their buttons and caps. School District 299 should not prohibit an individual's freedom of expression if there is no disturbance within the school setting.
II.
Facts
In September 2020, District 299, the largest school district in the City of Chicago, decided to enforce a dress code for middle and high school students with the aim of enhancing academic
performance. The dress code was made up of collared shirts in white, green, or blue and khaki pants or skirts, hats were not allowed. The two petitioners
,
Virginia Jefferson and Philip Smith, attend Homewood High school
, Virginia Jefferson and Philip Smith
. The petitioner did research and discovered the frequent consequences and tragedies that followed bullying and cyberbullying. Motivated by their findings, Jefferson and Smith chose to incorporate a message against cyberbullying into their uniforms. They added two-inch plastic buttons that stated “NO CYBERBULLYING!”, to their regular uniform shirts and wore baseball caps with the message “Cyberbullying KILLS!”. They were approached by other students which led to engaging discussions, this resulted in a few students being late to their classes. The petitioners
were approached by the defendant
, Homewood High school administration and were asked to remove
their buttons and caps. An alternative suggestion was made, suggesting the use of flyers for expression. However, Jefferson and Smith refused to comply and wished to communicate their views using buttons and caps, stating that no one pays attention to the posting boards. This resulted in the petitioner
being suspended until they agreed to wear the correct uniform.
III.
Relevant Law Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate
.
”
,
Tinker v. Des Moines
(1969). The C
c
ourt held that students have a right to speech in public schools unless their expression creates a substantial disruption and or infringes on the rights of others within a school setting.
1
Students have the right to voice their sexual orientation therefore schools cannot prohibit the open affiliation and support of people in the LGBTQ+ community, Gilman v. School Board for Holmes
County
(2008
)
.
Although headwraps lack particular characteristics that make other hats disruptive, it is unrealistic for school administrators to decide on a hat-by-hat basis whether a particular hat poses sufficient 1
cite
danger of disruption.
2
Personal freedoms are not absolute; the must yield when the intrude on freedoms of others, Isaacs v. Board of Education of Howard County
(1999). Using “cryptic” messages reasonably being interpreted as promoting marijuana and other drug use at public school, affirmed by the court, is not as extensive for speech rights for students at public schools, therefore the standard set by Tinker v. Des Moines
(1969)
, will not always be applied, Morse v. Frederick
(2007), IV.
Issue
The issue before this court is whether public schools prohibiting students to wear pins and hats to
display their views violates an individual's first amendment rights. V.
Analysis
Our analysis is guided by the relevant facts in this matter surrounding a student's first First A
a
mendment freedom of speech and expression rights within a public school. It is guided by the prior decisions of this C
c
ourt and other courts, which have additionally addressed whether public
schools can prohibit the use of items as a form of
expression for of the students. The students'
key argument is that once they were asked to remove the pins and caps, they stated they were sharing their views about cyberbullying since “no one at school pays any attention to posting boards in the cafeteria, resulting in the suspension of Jefferson and Smith for refusing to comply. On the other side, the school administration stated that their pins and baseball caps violated the dress code and offered an alternative to express their views, which was to post a flyer on the board postings in the cafeteria. Additionally, the school had a testimony that stated that the discussions induced by the students wearing the pins and hats were “lively and loud,” which resulted in some students entering their class several minutes late. This can be considered a form of disruption due to the students’ attire; however, there was no chaos or exceedingly disruptive 2
cite
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
action started compared to another case with similar characteristics as the one upon us. In the case of Morse v. Frederick
(2007), a student, Joseph Frederick, held a banner with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”, referencing the use of marijuana and ultimately causing disturbance within the school.
3
The Court held that school officials can indeed prohibit students from displaying public messages that promote the use of illegal drugs. While there are characteristics similar to the inquiry in the Morse v. Frederick
(2007)), in comparison to the students in the case presented before the court, there was no exceeding disruption, nor were the students insinuating any unlawful activity. But they are also expressing their own views on a topic significant to them and their peers
. Another case that shares very similar details is Tinker v. Des Moines
(1969). Christopher Eckhardt, Mary Beth Tinker, and John Tinker wore black arm bands to school in a plan to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War. Tinker v. Des Moines
(1969). The school then created a policy that stated any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, and refusal would lead to suspension. Tinker v. Des Moines
(1969). Both Eckhardt and
Mary Beth Tinker were sent home, following John Tinker as well. The Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions of those participating in it, while additionally stating that the students did not lose their right to freedom of speech when stepping on school property
.
Tinker v. Des Moines
(1969). In support of the plaintiff’s actions to wear pins and a cap to express their views on cyberbullying, it is clear that the action
to wear pins and a cap to express their views on cyberbullying was also a form of pure speech.
4
The intention was to express their views on cyberbullying and take steps for their peers to know the damage bullying can cause.
5
The students’
intention was not to cause uproar within the student body. Additionally, the dress code did not state that pins were not allowed, and while it is
3
cite
4
cite
5
cite
true that hats were stated to not be part of the dress code, the students
wearing the hats did not cause any disruption, nor was there a visible threat of disturbance within the classroom environment. Although in Isaacs v. Board of Education of Howard County
(1999), it was
the court
held that prohibiting wearing a cap within school grounds has to come at the expense of an individual's own freedom of expression, Isaacs v. Board of Education of Howard County
(1999), Those characteristics do not apply to this case since there were no foreseeable distractions; therefore, the student's right to freedom of expression has been violated. Similarly, in another prior case, Gi
l
lman v. School Board for Holmes County
(2008), plaintiff Heather Gillman claimed that the school board unlawfully prohibited her and other students from wearing and displaying t-shirts, armbands, stickers, or buttons with slogans and symbols that advocated for the fair treatment of homosexuals.
6
As a result, the School Board of Holmes County, Florida, and
administration are urged to restrain from prohibiting students within the district from expressing their respect, equal treatment, and acceptance of gays and lesbians, including but not limited to phrases and symbols
.
,
Gi
l
lman v. School Board for Holmes County
(2008). Here
,
we note that the
phrase on the pin, “NO CYBERBULLYING,” and on the cap, “Cyberbullying KILLS!” were the
students expressing their concerns for the topic and their support of other students within the body who are uninformed about the consequences of bullying in middle and high schools.
VI.
Recommendation/Resolution
For a collection of reasons, the court Court rules in favor of the students, Virginia
Jefferson and Philip Smith. First, it is apparent that the students wore the pins and hats to express their concerns and views on cyberbullying.
Furthermore, there are no foreseeable forms of disruption within the classroom environment coming from the act of wearing the pins and caps. We note that it may be inconvenient for the school administration to prevent others 6
cite
from expressing their views on other issues other than cyberbullying. However, it should be noted that the First Amendment, as proven in other cases, protects the right to peaceful expression, and expression is not limited to only speech; therefore, the school cannot prohibit the
use of pins and caps as a form of expression within the public-school environment.
VII.
Conclusion Accordingly, the court Court rules that students expressing views on cyberbullying through pins and caps is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the school claiming a dress code violation, evidence suggests the students' attire didn't cause excessive disruption, and comparing with legal precedents, their expression falls within the realm of protected speech.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help