Schools are supposed to be a place for students to grow and learn to be themselves. Yet, on October 13, 2020, Lydia Booth, a third-grade student in Jackson, Mississippi was told she can’t express her beliefs on a mask. She went to school in a mask that read “Jesus Loves Me” and was told by school officials that she could not wear it. If she refused and continued to wear it she was told she could face disciplinary actions and possible suspension because the school claimed it was against their policies. The school district allows students to wear other masks, such as college logos, “Black Lives Matter”, and more, but decided that Lydia Booth’s mask was inappropriate. When Lydia’s mother challenged the school districts actions, they said that it was against their schools policies outlined in their handbook. Two days after prohibiting her from wearing her mask the school administrators released a statement that messages on masks that are “political, religious, sexual or inappropriate symbols, gestures or statements that may be offensive, disruptive or deemed distractive to the school environment” are prohibited from being worn. They had just added that statement to the handbook to support their decision of prohibiting Lydia from wearing her mask.
The Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on Lydia Booth and her parent’s behalf. They are claiming that the school district is violating the First Amendments right of free expression of religion. The school districts original handbook had policies protecting freedom of speech under the Mississippi Student Religious Freedom Act and no policies regarding censorship of religious expression. They are contesting that the school’s recently revised version of the student handbook that was updated for COVID-19 and included the new policies prohibiting religious and political expression on masks is unconstitutional. Lydia’s wearing of her mask did not cause a disturbance or conflict with fellow classmates or school faculty, so there was no preach of peace. As long as her mask isn’t interfering with other’s ability to learn, why shouldn’t she be allowed to wear it?
This case relates to a previous Supreme Court decision in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District where it was decided that schools cannot silence students’ right to free expression just because they dislike it, or it is controversial. The Court stated that “in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression”. Their decision shows that public schools cannot take away the constitutional rights of their students. This case sets the precedent that as long as Lydia Booth’s mask isn’t disruptive, she has the right to wear it. If the Supreme Court uses the decision of this case as a precedent, then the school district will have to give Lydia the right to express her religion on her mask.
The First Amendment states 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…”. In Lydia Booth v. Simpson County School District, I believe there is a direct violation of her First Amendment right to freedom to exercise her religion. Lydia wearing her mask to school is not causing a disruption to other students or inciting conflict. She is peacefully expressing her religion and for the school to censor that is unconstitutional. She also was not doing anything against the schools’ original policies, and the new policies for censorship of mask wearing are unconstitutional. Students were allowed to wear college logos, sports teams, and Black Lives Matter masks to express their beliefs, so religion should be no different. If the Supreme Court allows the state the right to determine what is a free exercise of religion and what isn’t, it will open the door for many more issues to come. The schools can’t be allowed to just arbitrarily censor what students can or can’t express. Schools are a place where students are supposed to grow up and learn who they are, and a big part of that is being able to freely express their beliefs. There are many other expressions of religion that we see in schools such as students wearing crosses around their neck and students coming to school with ashes on their head for Ash Wednesday. If we allow schools to censor something like a mask saying, “Jesus Loves Me”, who is to stop them from prohibiting these other free exercises of religion in the future based off of the decision of this case. The Supreme Court should rule in favor of upholding Lydia Booth’s constitutional right to freedom of expression on a mask.
Julia, I agree with your argument of this case. I understand the school was attempting to make a change to their handbook to hold a neutral stance and not allow any political, religious, or inappropriate masks, but I do not understand why this change only happened recently. If other students had been wearing masks with varying messages on them, I believe Lydia should have been able to as well. Like the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case decided, the school should be unable to take away Lydia's or any other students' constitutional rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your reasoning Julia. In terms of neutrality, if a student is able to wear other paraphernalia that demonstrates their political beliefs, Lydia should also be able to wear her face mask representing her own identity. Much like it is one's first amendment right to wear a Black Lives Matter face mask, it is also Lydia's right to wear a "Jesus loves me" face mask. Another thing to consider is that this ruling could have a dangerous potential snowball effect. If this face mask is deemed incorrect within the school, who is not to say that wearing a religious necklace like the cross or star of David necklace has the same effect. Ruling in favor of the school will have dangerous implications for religious minorities and will be a direct attack on the first amendment
ReplyDeleteJulia, I agree with you stance. Because the school wanted to change their rules after she had worn the mask, she technically was not breaking any rules by wearing the mask at the time she did. Not to mention that the school creating this rule in the first place is clearly unconstitutional. As a public school, they cannot limit freedoms given by the First Amendment. I can see how private schools may be allowed to put more limitations on what students can/cannot wear, however for a school that is being funded by the public's taxpayer dollars, this seems unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia's analysis here. It's clear that the prohibition of specific religious speech on a mask prohibits the free exercise of students. The only argument that a school district could legitimately have against such speech is if it disrupts the order and instruction of the school day. Unlike hate speech, for instance, this poses no disruption and should, therefore, be further protected under free exercise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia that the school's ruling is unconstitutional. I appreciate what Anna says when she discusses the neutrality of this law because as Julia points out, there were many other masks that students were allowed to wear. What if Lydia was not wearing a mask and instead the school told her she could not wear a cross necklace? Would the case be different? It would be one thing if the school was handing out masks that said "Jesus Loves Me" as this is clearly not separation of church and state, yet I do not see a reason why a young girl is unable to wear a mask she purchased to school.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Julia's opinions regarding this case. I don't think a child wearing a mask that says "Jesus Loves Me" establishes any type of religion in the school. The child is not trying to coerce other students or faculty to align themselves with a certain religion. This mask does not cause any type of disruption and is the way she chooses to express her religion during the school day. Many students wear cross necklaces to classes, some students choose to wear kippahs on their heads, or wear hijabs. These are all valid and peaceful ways to express their religions in their daily lives. This "Jesus Loves Me" mask is no different.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your point that the school would not punish a student for wearing a cross necklace and in addition would almost certainly allow a student to wear a kippah or hijab. Personal professing of your religion is not disruptive nor controversial. Not only is the child not trying to convert anyone to her religion during the school day she is being prevented equal access to education for exhibiting her faith which violates her first amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteJulia, I agree with your stance on the case. The child is expressing herself peacefully, and the mask does not pose a threat to any other students or the school’s operation. I agree with many of the other comments which compare this to the wearing of a cross necklace. I believe this ruling is a clear example of suppression of free speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia's stance on the case that it violates Lyndia's First Amendment rights. When students step onto school property they do not lose their First Amendment rights. The mask that Lyndia wears saying "Jesus Loves Me" does not cause harm to anyone or disruption of the school day. I also do not understand why the school would be able to tell her to take off the mask after the ruling in the case of Tinker v Des Moines (1969)? This is why I think this it a clear ruling that Lyndia's First Amendment rights were violated.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Julia's stance on this case, I do think that it violates Lydia's First Amendment rights. American citizens have the freedom to express their religion even on school grounds. Her wearing this mask does not imply that the school is supporting or establishing a specific religion, but it is Lydia's right to practice and express her own. She is not harming any of the staff or other students by wear this mask, nor is she causing a disruption or distraction to the school day. The school essentially has no connection to Lydia's mask, other than the fact that she is wearing it on school grounds. There are so many other religious symbols that students wear on their clothes or person, like the cross necklaces that you mentioned. If this is permitted, what makes the mask any different?
ReplyDeleteYes I definitely agree with Julia's stance and do not think there is much of an argument against it. A child wearing a mass that harmlessly expresses their religion is not something a school should be allowed to prohibit. This girl wearing that mask is not at all her trying to establish a religion in a public area. The school preventing Lydia from wearing a mask that says "Jesus loves me" would definitely be a violation of Lydia's first amendment rights. The school would have no valid argument as to why they are prohibiting Lydia from wearing this harmless mask in school.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Indpendent Community School District should serve as sufficient grounds for a lower court to resolve this case in favor of Plaintiff, one cannot escape the feeling that a ruling from the high court today might not be a 9-0 decision but, instead a 5-4 decision (and possibly 5-4 in favor of Defendant).
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about presumably rational adults, employed for the purpose of properly administering a school, that inclines them to an hostility toward free expression when that expression is a non-aggressive expression of the Christian faith? And that, in spite of established law? One would think that, with all of the losses over the past 25 years in cases involving attempted limits of free expression when that expression involves the Christian faith, that these speech totalitarians would learn their lesson. This is especially so, when one also considers the numerous hours of "sensitivity" and "diversity" training employers and officials must take these days. And, yet, officials like those at Simpson Central School seem to need to be taught the lessons anew every so often.
Have we, as a nation, reached the point at which our founding principles now only receive lip service in the classroom? It will be interesting, and instructive, to see how this case resolves. Hopefully, the Defendants will not be allowed to moot the matter.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Indpendent Community School District should serve as sufficient grounds for a lower court to resolve this case in favor of Plaintiff, one cannot escape the feeling that a ruling from the high court today might not be a 9-0 decision but, instead a 5-4 decision (and possibly 5-4 in favor of Defendant).
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about presumably rational adults, employed for the purpose of properly administering a school, that inclines them to an hostility toward free expression when that expression is a non-aggressive expression of the Christian faith? And that, in spite of established law? One would think, with all of the losses over the past 25 years in cases involving attempted limits of free expression when that expression involves the Christian faith, that these speech totalitarians would learn their lesson. This is especially so, when one also considers the numerous hours of "sensitivity" and "diversity" training employers and officials must take these days. And, yet, officials like those at Simpson Central School seem to need to be taught the lessons anew every so often.
Have we, as a nation, reached the point at which our founding principles now only receive lip service in the classroom? It will be interesting, and instructive, to see how this case resolves. Hopefully, the Defendants will not be allowed to moot the matter.
Does anyone have an update on this case? What has happened ? I would like to know the outcome. Thanks
ReplyDelete