Student sues school district after being punished for wearing pro-gun shirt (March, federal)

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Nonesuch

Which ruling? Have you read Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board? Or even Tinker?



That's actually accounted for in this new lawsuit (Guardanapo v. Washoe County School District et al).

Kendyl Depoali Middle School dress code states that the school has chosen to allow students freedom of expression (Policy 5101), even allowing political political speech (Policy 1310), but has decided that Guardanapo doesn't deserve a voice -- they don't claim that his choice of shirt is disruptive or otherwise interferes with other students education, just that it doesn't match up with the teachers and administrators anti-gun political slant.

I noted somewhere that there might be a argument for unfair (hypocritical) enforcement here. All that would mean though is tighter enforcement.

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

Sorry, I am not a little child who has to get the last word in.

Except for just this one time...

[Catgirl64]

Ugh. After reading all this mess, it's hard for me to understand why more school districts don't simply ban graphic tees altogether. Then there would be no possibility of hurt feelings over whose message was or was not treated fairly.

As for the free speech issue, guess what? You can't wear whatever you want at most jobs, either, and what better place than school for kids to learn the life skill of dressing appropriately?

Damn. I'm getting old.

[Jowel]

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

Ugh. After reading all this mess, it's hard for me to understand why more school districts don't simply ban graphic tees altogether. Then there would be no possibility of hurt feelings over whose message was or was not treated fairly.

As for the free speech issue, guess what? You can't wear whatever you want at most jobs, either, and what better place than school for kids to learn the life skill of dressing appropriately?

Damn. I'm getting old.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Catgirl64 again.

[Nonesuch]

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

As for the free speech issue, guess what? You can't wear whatever you want at most jobs, either, and what better place than school for kids to learn the life skill of dressing appropriately?

Private employers are allowed to engage in viewpoint-based discrimination, Public Schools are explicitly forbidden to restrict speech in a discriminatory manner -- they can forbid all political speech (within the limitations of Tinker), or allow all non-disruptive political speech, but in this case, the school's policy explicitly says that you can wear all the anti-gun shirts you want, but shirts supportive of the 2nd amendment are forbidden by policy:

Originally Posted by Washoe County

Nothing in this policy shall be construed to restrict or ban a student’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech, to include wearing of clothing and/or accessories related to a political stance, with the exception of unprotected speech.

The lawsuit alleges that the school enforces the "unprotected speech ...promotes weapons" clause in the dress code in an illegal and discriminatory manner. If the school were to forbid all message shirts, that would be different -- but a government entity can't decide that only pro-2A messages are forbidden.

What is inappropriate is for a teacher to punish a student for not agreeing with the teacher's politics:

Originally Posted by Jowel

I wonder how life is going to work out for this entitled kid later in life.

What happens when he wants to wear a "political" to work to exercise his First Amendment rights and gets told to go home and change into something more appropriate, or gets fired?

Wow, that's reading a lot into the case that isn't present.

Schools are a public institution, it is unlawful for teachers to enforce the dress code in a partisan manner, and I for one applaud G.M. for having the courage to stand up to a public sector employee with power over his life and refuse to be cowed for disagreeing with Ms. May's obvious anti-gun bias.

Originally Posted by Jowel

People need to realize that some things are simply disrespectful and inappropriate and shouldn't be done, rather than making a federal case out everything. I sure hope the taxpayers aren't on the hook for court costs involved with this.

This is aside from the other legal issues being debated here and the question of why he would feel the need to wear such a shirt to begin with (unless it wasn't just to stir things up for the sake of doing it).

Washoe County School District policy explicitly allows "student speech through clothing", including political messages.

If we're happy with reading stuff into the suit that isn't there, perhaps he saw the "March for our lives" students wearing shirts with slogans endorsing gun control, and got the mistaken idea that a shirt supporting a constitutional right was permitted under the dress code?

[Jowel]

^ They still have to deal with the "substantial disruption" clause, which gives discretion to school officials to determine that certain clothing disrupts from the orderly school environment, which could contain a political statement within it. A shirt with a graphic picture of someone peeing in the street could have the message "support candidates who want to legalize public urination" and just because it has a political message doesn't give it a pass from the other standards within the dress code.

Also, if we're going to get even more technical, one could make the argument that the shirt depicts gang-related behavior (which is prohibited by the dress code policy) since the shirt's core depiction is weapons, which are frequently used (and paraded around) by gangs in carrying out their criminal activities. Could the interpretation be different if the shirt simply said "March for the 2nd Amendment"? Perhaps. So I do think there is a difference between the shirt in question and the "March for our Lives" shirt. A middle school student wearing a shirt with firearms pasted all over it (which can be taken all kinds of ways) is different than a middle school student wearing a shirt supporting speaking out against school violence, which is a foundation of the "March for our lives movement", not just gun control.

And the school isn't enforcing the policy in a partisan matter because nothing about the shirt had anything to do with supporting or not supporting a candidate or political party. It was promoting firearms in a similar manner that a Joe Camel T shirt from the 1990's would be promoting tobacco products, which would also be prohibited by the dress code. Nor does the school being a public one mean students can just behave or dress however they please. Too many students (and their parents) are interpreting things this way, which is unfortunate because it makes the schools much more disruptive environments that are less conducive to learning in general.

The lawsuit may allege that some of these things are being done, but just because a lawsuit alleges something doesn't make it true. Unfounded lawsuits are thrown out of court all the time.

But my earlier post simply said that some things shouldn't be done by civil people (who know how to behave in public and under certain circumstances), and it's not always necessary to make a federal case out of everything.

And my comment about him finding out later in life that there are consequences to actions (even if protected by the First Amendment) is true. How would that not be true? He may have a first amendment right to tell a boss or a big client to **** off, but that doesn't mean it won't have consequences for him.

[Nonesuch]

Originally Posted by Jowel

^ They still have to deal with the "substantial disruption" clause, which gives discretion to school officials to determine that certain clothing disrupts from the orderly school environment, which could contain a political statement within it. A shirt with a graphic picture of someone peeing in the street could have the message "support candidates who want to legalize public urination" and just because it has a political message doesn't give it a pass from the other standards within the dress code.

Also, if we're going to get even more technical, one could make the argument that the shirt depicts gang-related behavior (which is prohibited by the dress code policy) since the shirt's core depiction is weapons, which are frequently used (and paraded around) by gangs in carrying out their criminal activities. Could the interpretation be different if the shirt simply said "March for the 2nd Amendment"? Perhaps. So I do think there is a difference between the shirt in question and the "March for our Lives" shirt. A middle school student wearing a shirt with firearms pasted all over it (which can be taken all kinds of ways) is different than a middle school student wearing a shirt supporting speaking out against school violence, which is a foundation of the "March for our lives movement", not just gun control.

And the school isn't enforcing the policy in a partisan matter because nothing about the shirt had anything to do with supporting or not supporting a candidate or political party. It was promoting firearms in a similar manner that a Joe Camel T shirt from the 1990's would be promoting tobacco products, which would also be prohibited by the dress code.

The only disruption noted was when a teacher (Ms. May) decided to go after a student (G.M.) for wearing this shirt:

Originally Posted by Jowel

The lawsuit may allege that some of these things are being done, but just because a lawsuit alleges something doesn't make it true. Unfounded lawsuits are thrown out of court all the time.

But my earlier post simply said that some things shouldn't be done by civil people (who know how to behave in public and under certain circumstances), and it's not always necessary to make a federal case out of everything.

Students are supposed to be learning about their civil rights. What better way to do so than make a Federal case out of an actual injustice?

Without brave students willing to stand up for their rights, we wouldn't have Tinker or Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board to back up up students like G.M. when teachers want to marginalize students who don't toe the party line.

[Jowel]

Originally Posted by Nonesuch

The only disruption noted was when a teacher (Ms. May) decided to go after a student (G.M.) for wearing this shirt:

Students are supposed to be learning about their civil rights. What better way to do so than make a Federal case out of an actual injustice?

Without brave students willing to stand up for their rights, we wouldn't have Tinker or Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board to back up up students like G.M. when teachers want to marginalize students who don't toe the party line.

Not everyone's going to agree with me. I realize that and am okay with that.

But to clarify, the solution is to file a civil rights lawsuit in federal court over dress codes? Is that going to be the best solution when that person becomes an adult and his boss is mad because he's wearing a pro gun T-shirt and flip flops to work when that kind of attire isn't allowed? Is that going to be the solution every time he feels put upon? Right, because litigating every grievance imaginable has worked so well in our society.
I understand that people have due process rights, no argument there, but is that always the best solution?

This thread also helps demonstrate the advantages of having a uniform policy, which some school districts do. Personally, I think the kids often have a better perspective on not making mountains out of mole hills and it's often the adults who blow things out of proportion (which is very possible that the kid's parents are the ones really pushing this and not the student). The teachers and principals do have a school to run though so that has challenges to not make a bigger issue out of things than needed, but at the same time, make sure the way students are conducting themselves, including their attire, isn't interfering with the learning environment. Which is a fine line to toe sometimes.

And just for the record, if a student wearing a t-shirt saying "F[expletive] the NRA" were sent home because of the shirt being a distraction to the learning environment, I would agree the school would be justified in saying that shirt interferes with the learning environment and violates the dress code.

But if the "don't tread on me" folks are that even handed in their defense of civil rights, I look forward to the them marching in support of the student who gets sent home for an Anti-NRA t-shirt or shirt with some other liberal message because being sent home violated that student's civil rights of freedom of political expression.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Jowel

Not everyone's going to agree with me. I realize that and am okay with that.

But to clarify, the solution is to file a civil rights lawsuit in federal court over dress codes? Is that going to be the best solution when that person becomes an adult and his boss is mad because he's wearing a pro gun T-shirt and flip flops to work when that kind of attire isn't allowed? Is that going to be the solution every time he feels put upon? Right, because litigating every grievance imaginable has worked so well in our society.
I understand that people have due process rights, no argument there, but is that always the best solution?

And just for the record, if a student wearing a t-shirt saying "F[expletive] the NRA" were sent home because of the shirt being a distraction to the learning environment, I would agree the school would be justified in saying that shirt interferes with the learning environment and violates the dress code.

But if the "don't tread on me" folks are that even handed in their defense of civil rights, I look forward to the them marching in support of the student who gets sent home for an Anti-NRA t-shirt or shirt with some other liberal message because being sent home violated that student's civil rights of freedom of political expression.

I believe students should be able to wear either and the rest of the students should be taught to respect the opinions of others.

[Nonesuch]

Resolution: Washoe County School District reached a stipulated judgement, in which the district was ordered to pay a portion of the student’s legal fees. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the district notified parents that it was revising its dress code policy, removing a ban on clothing that “promotes weapons.”

Originally Posted by Judgement

Defendant Washoe County School District's application of the Washoe County School District dress code and the Kendyl Depoali Middle School dress code to Plaintiff G.M. violated his rights secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Parties have represented that they have resolved all damages, costs and fees associated with the foregoing judgment, with Defendant paying Plaintiff $25,000 in attorney's fees. This case is therefore closed.