Comparing The Pentagram Symbol Of Religion

The First Amendment is designed to protect all citizens by giving them the right to express themselves in different ways. In doing so, we still have to be careful on how we do it. Students have the right to express themselves as long as it does not cause any disruption. In my school district, we abides by the First Amendment by not forbidding all mention of religion in the school system (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). The only part that is prohibited is the advancement or inhibition of religion (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). My school district feels that there’s nothing unconstitutional about using religious subjects or materials as long as it is in compliance to the neutrality of the education program (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015).

In the case of Shanna’s Shirt, the school district had a written policy in place stating that “clothing may not advocate or advertise drugs, alcohol, or tobacco and may not contain lewd, profane, or vulgar language or symbols.” Clearly, Shanna’s shirt did not violate the policy. The school district should consider adding another criteria that bans clothing that causes substantial disruption and also include banning hate messages. In the case of Shanna’s shirt, a previous case of Harper v. Poway (2006) ruling by the U.S. Supreme court upheld the ban of a similar shirt that read “Homosexuality is Shameful. Romans 1:27.” The court used the reasoning that the language violated the rights of other students by being hurtful to the offended

Yet, in 1999, when Serrano High School first banned the wearing of clothes with certain colors because they were feared to be "gang-related", the students had no choice but to comply. While the School Board does retain the right to censor some forms of expression because they are inappropriate in language or may cause a disruption to the learning process, the idea that students are not allowed to wear clothes because of their color begins to push the envelope. In 2003 the school board took this a step further and banned any hat with a logo other than the schools logo on it because of the prevalence of hats with inappropriate logos on them that might be gang-related or have a double-meaning. However, this reasoning was never justified with any event or occurrence that would prove these hats were becoming an issue of security for the students. Often times, the only form of expression a High School age student has is the clothing they wear, and the banning of their selection of clothing without giving justification is equivalent to restricting any other form of free speech without justification. The fact that school boards only vaguely justify their reasons for certain dress code restrictions is enough to warrant a reasoned inquiry by the students into why their speech is being suppressed.

Historically, legal issues regarding the grading of assignments containing religious material have come to similar decisions. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), a group of students decided to express their views about Vietnam by wearing black armbands to school. Although the district attempted to punish them for this, the Supreme Court ruled that the students were expressing a form of “symbolic speech” and were protected by the First Amendment, as long as it did not disrupt normal school functions. Similarly, expressing views of religion in school is protected if it does not disturb the educational process. According to Haynes and Oliver (2007), students have the right to express religious beliefs “in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions” (p. 65). An educator must

Censorship cases often bring about debates over students’ first amendment rights. Students’ first amendment rights are important to preserve so that students can not be excluded from meaningful works or literature. It is understandable for the government to design educational plans as a way to get its voice into classrooms, but “the truth-promoting function of the First Amendment provides no reason, however, to question the right of students to explore a variety of ideas and perspectives, and to form and express ideas of their own” (Brown, 1994, p. 30). Schools already place a restriction on religious material or material addressing current political controversy (Brown, 1994).

The First Amendment rights have caused much controversy because it allows people to say, act, or feel how they see fit; for example, hanging of a Confederate flag or displaying a swastika in public view. It is a very hard and intense act; although it is their right to do so. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the displaying of these symbols is protected under the First Amendment.

The Motion to Dismiss should be allowed because Stacey Smith’s (“Plaintiff”) conduct does not constitute expression and the Board of Education of the Town of Douglassville’s (“Douglassville”) dress code is constitutional. Nonverbal conduct constitutes expression when there is intent to convey a particularized message through the conduct, and that particularized message is likely to be understood by others. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410 (1974); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 401 (1989). In the present case, Plaintiff has established that she intended to convey a message of support for her friend, Fatima Ahmed, and the religion of Islam by wearing the

The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

While the first article did not deal with an issue that could be potentially harmful, or risk the safety of the students, the next two articles deal with free speech and school safety. The first article discusses whether or not students should be allowed to wear clothing, or accessories with confederate symbols. These middle school students do not think that it should be a problem to wear this type of clothing. They are exercising their freedom of speech in wearing these confederate articles.

Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his

Being in 7th grade, the student did not have full rights, “For example, children have a limited right to free speech. ... However, schools may limit the child's speech if they feel it could harm other students.”( What are the Legal Rights of Children? (n.d.). Therefore, for Guiles to argue that the school was infringing on his first amendment, I feel as if this was not correct. The school had every right, and even more power than that, that could induce a dress code that involved identical uniforms. For example, according to ProCon.org. 2017, “In Long Beach, CA, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%.” The students shirt in question had numerous amounts of potentially provoking, or exposure, to these elements shown to cause problems in schools, and infringed on the other students being exposed to these

Des moines case, the majority opinion of the court ruled that, “the school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners” This case set a precedent for the overall message for public schools, declaring it unconstitutional to shed all of the rights of students when they enter the school. Under this clause, the Supreme Court shows that the school officials in Tinker versus Des Moines had no right to suspend the kids for wearing an armband because it did not cause a specific disruption, it merely showed off their own political views on a specific topic to the general public, which differed the protestors from the social norms our country expects. This connects to the T shirt case because this student was merely depicting his own religious viewpoint in a direct way, rather than a symbolic way. Simply because students were offended by his shirt, this does not outweigh the right that Harper has to express his freedom of religion and speech in school about what he felt about homosexuals. The case states that “In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” Expression of opinion is completely legal no

The subject of student rights has caused a lot of confusion and anger for decades now. There are two different sides that everyone seems to fall into. Some people want the constitutional rights of students to be fully protected within the school. The other side believes that, as a public institution, schools should regulate what is said or done by students to protect everyone involved. This is where it gets confusing, because it is hard to draw the line between what is allowed or not. The three most interesting topics that I chose to cover are a student’s right to free speech, religion within the school and student privacy.

Imagine picking up your child from school to find her in tears. Through her sobs she tells you that her day was spent in In-School-Suspension (ISS) for refusing to remove her head scarf, part of your family’s religious attire; I’m sure that you would be outraged. Your child’s uniform policy does not allow for any type of head gear to be worn, which left her stuck outside of the classroom and in ISS. In the words of the United States Department of Education, “A school uniform policy must accommodate students whose religious beliefs are substantially burdened by a uniform requirement (“Manual on School Uniforms”), this mandate is distributed to all public schools that want to implement or are currently utilizing a uniform policy. What the school did to your child is considered a violation of her religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A school district in North Carolina came to an out-of-court settlement after being slapped with a lawsuit due to the fact that they denied any exemptions from the uniform policy based on religion. Our great country was founded on the basis of Freedom of Religion, so why should we allow for it to be taken away because of a school board’s decision to adopt a uniform policy that does