Symbolic speech in schools has been debated for decades. It can be seen as subtle words used between classmates, or quite evident like a shirt containing graphic material. In all cases, a basic school of thought must be applied: the effects on learning. In the eyes of the law, the freedom of speech is overruled by the freedom to learn. The freedom to learn may not be as easy to interpret in the bill of rights, but is present nonetheless. For example, students cannot wear articles of clothing that imply drugs/alcohol. An acceptable instance would be if a student wore a shirt that peacefully expresses one’s religion. Although both examples are protected under the constitution, the shirt implying drugs/alcohol isn’t protected because it infringes …show more content…
I’m certain that some schools have very fair parameters regarding free speech. That being said, I’m just as certain that unreasonable administrators go too far in various situations. In a broad sense, I think free speech in schools goes just far enough. Controversy over how students can use symbolic speech stems from ignorance of the learning environment. Many of my peers argue that the dress code in school is a violation of free speech. I approach it through simple necessities. Are controversial clothes a necessity for a school to function? A reasonable person would say no. Having said that, is an environment where students efficiently learn a necessity for a school to function? I believe yes and I’d be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees. The purpose of school is to function as an establishment of learning. If something were to impede on the learning process, it is only reasonable that it be removed. My opinion on this issue has been strongly influenced by a personal experience with symbolic speech in schools. My sophomore year, I was on an intramural basketball team that was intended to reference the Wichita State Basketball team. Our team name was the Shockers and right before our first game, we were told that the name would be censored due to an offensive slang connotation of the word Shocker. I was frustrated, and decided the only way I could make an difference was to go …show more content…
They rationalize that there are plenty of freedoms students have today which cause them to be distracted. For example, clothes can be a distraction. By that logic, wouldn’t an ideal learning environment entail students wearing uniforms? Students would definitely be less distracted, but at what cost? That is the source of controversy; the task of determining what a significant distraction looks
Schools have very different policy's when it comes to what the 1st amendment says. 2 cases are proof of this, Tinker vs Des Moines is a case where a simple armband protesting the Vietnam war which shouldn’t be an issue gets into the supreme court. This is because schools can enforce things that are a distracting or disruptive to school activity. A similar case to this is Bethel school district vs Fraser is a case where freedom of speech of a student gets taken away from him. This is due to the fact the student was making sexual remarks in a school speech which the principle deemed inappropriate for some students. Both cases directly relate to the first amendment with Tinker vs Des Moines being freedom of expression and Fraser being freedom of speech. Tinkers case is the best
Symbolic speech is a form a freedom of speech. As citizens they were just expressing their views in a public setting, which is protected by the First Amendment. “Symbolic speech is non-verbal communication used to express or convey a specific message or idea” (Coleman, “Symbolic Speech: Definition & Examples”). The school officials judge the students by limiting the student’s speech because they did not agree with their views on the war. In the case study, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District., the school prohibited the wearing of the black armbands when it” exhibit opposition to the nation’s involvement in Vietnam”, but “the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance” (pg.139). Since the Tinkers were students in a public school that the Supreme Court consider a limited public form. Public forms are designed for people to express their views, but in a limited public form
The schools legally censored the ability to show their symbolic speech by having uniforms to limit expression. In the Majority opinion of the Tinker v Des Moines it says that “Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). This statement exemplifies that based on the first amendment the students have the ability of expression allowed by the
Since school uniforms have become more and more common in the United States, there has been one issue that many, of the parents and students are worried about. Many believe the children will not have the ability to express themselves freely. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression. This means that students do not leave their First Amendment rights outside the schoolhouse door, but their opinions can be limited to prevent major disruptions to classes and outside activities. To make this statement more clear, in 2003, a high school senior was suspended from school for wearing a tee-shirt of President George W. Bush with the statement “International Terrorist.” (ACLU , 1997-2009) The student’s suspension was later
“Expression may be symbolic, as well as verbal. Symbolic speech is conduct that expresses an idea. Although speech is commonly thought of as verbal expression, we are all aware of nonverbal communication. Sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing…protest buttons are examples of symbolic speech. While most forms of conduct could be said to express ideas in some way, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. In analyzing such cases, the courts ask whether the speaker intended to convey a particular message, and whether it is likely that the message was understood by those who viewed it. In order to convince a court that symbolic conduct should be punished and not protected as speech, the government must show it has an important reason. However, the reason cannot be that the government disapproves of the message conveyed by the symbolic conduct” (Arbertman 442-3).
I experimented with several different sequencing of search logic. At first I used "symbolic speech" instead of "flag-burning," but the results were too large for the purposes of this paper. The search logic above worked best for the limits of this paper.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom
Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of
“Free speech” often has negative connotations because the negative outcomes are publicized more than the positive outcomes. ‘Free Speech’ is a time for individuals to express their beliefs and topic on an important issue. People chose to present themselves in a vast majority of ways such as, holding signs, making t-shirts, shouting, etc. People who chose to present themselves in disrupting ways such as, foul language, inappropriate attire are more likely to be noticed than another student that is holding a simple and respectful sign. Schmidt states, “Universities cannot censor or suppress speech, no matter how obnoxious in content, without violating their justification of existence” (2). There is no definition of what type of ‘free speech’ should be censored and not allowed. With that said, there should not be a limit on ‘free speech’
“Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...”. This is what our first amendment speaks about. The freedom of speech and expression. Schools have been violating this law in the place of school dress codes. There should not be a dress code in school because it violates the first amendment, they do not support creativity and they are expensive.
The reason is that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause requires courts and school districts to weigh and balance two forceful ideas that occasionally clash: The need for a safe, orderly school environment conducive to learning. The guaranteed American entitlement to speak or engage in expressive activity. Some states have passed laws empowering school boards to regulate student dress. For instance, Tennessee has a law allowing school boards to pass
Schools that have dress codes are going too far. Dress codes take away students ability to dress and frame their personalities. In an article by Dylan Ankersen he explains how the ability to be free is the “power to write, speak, act or dress as one wants without hindrance” (Akerson). Akerson is saying that people need the power to be who they want and not be told who they want to be. The first amendment says that “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”(Bill of Rights).
If you were to limit students freedom of speech,you would just be like another parent telling them what they can and can not do.Putting limits on what the students say and do wouldn't be a bad thing but it wouldn't be a great thing.When you want kids to have things to say and speak up for what they believe in they won't because you silenced them.Yes,having students have freedom of speech could be a bad thing in a sense they could not give teachers respect or say things that are not aloud in school.Students having limited freedoms of speech wouldn't be bad you could allow them to know what is okay at school and what's not right at school.By giving the students limited freedoms of speech they still have
Often times, students cannot recognize the line between free speech and hateful speaking because it is blurred for them. They have long been taught that free speech is our born right, tride and true. However, some students take it too far with their words. When this is brought up, many students bring it up as their opinion, or use the free speech card. Many people are worried that students will lose their right to free speech if their expression is restricted. However, to make schools a better environment things need to change. Student expression should be restricted in language and body language, in clothing, and on the internet.
As an educator, it is extremely important to know educational policies. On top of the knowledge, it is also imperative to respect the rights granted to students in the democratic society. Attached above is an article, published by the first amendment center, regarding how the first amendment is employed within public schools. The first topic in the article is titled speaking out in school. Here I learned that the school cannot limit the student’s freedom of speech, unless it is hindering the environment to learn, and even then, there is a lot of grey area. Here the school must be able to provide substantial evidence that the student’s writing, speech, or expression would cause great disruption. This also ties directly into school dress code and uniforms required by the school corporation. Students, in many