“Homosexuality is a sin -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.” In late August of 2020, a Tennessee student wore a shirt with this statement on it to her public high school and was immediately sent to the principal’s office. The student was told she needed to change because her shirt violated the dress code, which states, “clothing with offensive messages, including advertisements for drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sexual connotations or double meanings is unacceptable”; the school cited her shirt’s reference to “sex." Her parents chose to take her home instead of having her change shirts, and they are now suing the Overton County School District. The suit claims that the school district is violating the student’s rights to free speech and free exercise of religion: “By forcing Plaintiff B.A.P. to choose between abandoning her religious beliefs in order to receive an education and, alternatively, abiding by her religious beliefs only to be demerited and disciplined, the school district has imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff B.A.P.’s sincerely-held religious beliefs and the exercise of her religion.”
The student’s father, a preacher who frequently speaks out against the LGBTQ community, has been very active on social media. On August 26, he tweeted, “My 15 year old was thrown out of school for the day for wearing this shirt. #lgbt wants to trample on your #freespeech rights while they cry for special rights.” Their lawsuit claims that student B.A.P. is trying to “spread awareness” of her political, religious, and social views, and she believes her shirt expresses a “political viewpoint founded upon her religious belief." The school district has not responded to the lawsuit yet.
This case involves the intersecting rights of free speech and free exercise of religion with the rights of the school to regulate the educational environment. Her rights must be balanced with the educational interests of the school, but where do we draw the line? In the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This decision established that school officials could not censor student speech or behavior unless it “disrupted the educational process.” While school students are quite protected in their speech and expression, there are limits.
In a similar case to B.A.P. v Overton County Board of Education, a group of religious students in Gainesville, Florida in 2009 wore t-shirts to their public school that said “Islam is of the Devil.” The school district informed the students that they could not wear the shirts because they violated the dress code, as they were “offensive” and disruptive of the educational process. The district judge sided with the school and said that they had a “reasonable fear” that the t-shirts would disrupt the school process. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the First Amendment rights of school students are “not as broad” as those of adults in public spaces because public schools are not public forums and, therefore, may be regulated. This decision is consistent with Tinker, and a similar ruling should be made in regards to B.A.P.
The Overton County student’s shirt was offensive and disruptive. It is fully within the student’s rights to wear that shirt out in public, but a public school is not a completely open platform to express religious beliefs. It is consistent with Tinker, and Wayne SAP , et al. v School Board of Alachua County, Florida which dealt with the “Islam is of the Devil” shirts, for the school to limit student speech or expression when it actively disrupts the educational process. Walking around in a shirt that declares that “homosexuality is a sin” would be disruptive and viewed as hostile by students who are members of or allies to the LGBTQ community. Public schools have a compelling interest in maintaining a safe and effective learning environment, and that trumps the potential violation of the student’s right to free exercise. Public school students are largely protected in their speech and free exercise, but students do not have the right to wear clothing that actively disrupts the educational process.
I disagree, however, with the school’s decision to cite the reference to the word “sex” as the reasoning for the shirt violating the dress code. The school’s dress code, as are most dress codes, is vague and does not define what it means by “sexual connotations.” The shirt is offensive and should not be permitted, but not because it includes the word “sex.” Regardless, the court should side with the school and their right to safeguarding the learning environment from offensive or disruptive clothing.
10 comments:
This is a very interesting case that reminds me a lot of Morse v. Frederick, in which a student was suspended for holding up a banner at school that read "Bong hits 4 jesus," and then contested the suspension on the grounds of free speech. In this case and in Morse v. Frederick I would have to agree with the proceeding decisions that free speech rights are not as extensive in schools as they are elsewhere. The content of the T-shirt was clearly offensive and disruptive to the education and possibly the safety of LGBTQ+ students and allies, and therefore justifies a limitation to speech. Regarding religion, outwardly condemning homosexuality in such an explicit way is not a fundamental religious obligation or practice, and the defendant's inability to wear the T-shirt in no way denies her ability to feely exercise her religion by believing in the T-shirt's message or acting on it in ways that are not determined to be disruptive.
I agree with Emma and your overall decision. We've seen time and time again throughout history that people give up parts of their rights when they elect to become students, especially those at public institutions. While I do agree with the statement from Tinker that not all constitutional rights are given up, it is the school's duty and priority to provide a conducive learning environment where the students feel comfortable learning and developing their ideas about the world. If the student were to wear the shirt in public, there would likely be an infringement on her free exercise rights if she were told to change, but in the school environment, I would argue that this should be disallowed.
I agree with Shana's position on this particular issue. This situation seems difficult to determine at first because it takes into account the First Amendment free speech right of the student as well as the school's dress code policies. Although I think that a First Amendment right would normally take precedent over school dress code violation, the specific writing on this student's shirt is more of a message of hate than an example of free speech. In addition, the shirt could in fact be disruptful and harmful to the LGBTQ students who attend that school as Shana stated in her explanation. Due to this, it is the school's obligation to make sure that all of their students feel like they are in a safe learning environment, which is why I also think that the student should not be able to wear that shirt in school. In public I believe it is fair play to wear that shirt, but it is blatantly violating the dress code of the school by being offensive and hateful.
I agree with your position here. In a public institution, the government has the right to impose its overriding interest on the speech conducted in this case and in cases they've decided in the past about what is taught (i.e. evolution, etc.). The need to ensure a safe environment for LGBTQ+ people is absolutely overriding. There is a real danger to inciting violence and prejudice against LGBTQ+ people, and there's a fundamental duty for the school and the government to curb against that risk. I would prioritize hostility towards LGBTQ+ people over concerns about hostility towards religion by restricting the speech of the given individual.
I agree with the author. This took place at a public school, and the school reserves the right to dress code students for varying reasons. If a piece of clothing is even questionably offensive, a student should not be permitted to wear. I agree with your stance that the shirt should not only be disallowed due to the fact that it contains the word "sex". The shirt is outwardly offensive regardless of religious and/or political beliefs and is rightfully disallowed by the school.
I agree with Shana on this case. While a freedom of speech is important, even if an individual's speech is hateful, a public school setting has different restrictions. Because of the disruptive nature of the shirt, along with its message that would attack other students in an environment that is supposed to be safe for all individuals, there is a greater state interest that supersedes that of the individual.
I thought it was interesting how you brought up Tinker because it also makes the distinction between acceptable speech and speech that constitutes a substantial disruption and in this case, the shirt seems overly inflammatory. The court has a long history of granting schools wide deference in determining the conduct of students. There are ways for students to express their religious beliefs without making statements blatantly targeted at offending other groups of students.
I agree with your assessment of the case and believe that the Court would cite Tinker and W.A.P. to justify the actions of the school. A public school is a public forum, and these cases established that students do not hold the same broad scope of speech rights while in attendance. Although I somewhat agree with you point that the t-shirt was cited for a message regarding "sex", I am not sure what else under its dress code it would violate. Even though this may not be the clearest justification under the dress code, I believe that it is the strongest out of the options provided.
I agree with the author of the post. A shirt like this is totally unnecessary and totally inappropriate to wear in a public school. When you enter a pubic education, you have to abide by the rules. Allowing a student to wear a shirt like this does not promote free speech, it promotes hate. All students need to feel safe inside their school and allowing this would do the opposite.
While I agree with the aspirations of the author as to the outcome of the case, this potential outcome does raise some questions. The author says they would like to see this shirt restricted not for its relation to 'sex' but to some other axiom of offensiveness. My concern with this case would be a potential slippery slope condition that would accompany whichever axiom of offensiveness was chosen to restrict the content of the shirt. Would the shirt be restricted if it simply featured the text of the bible verse? How else might might this decision be stretched to restrict less blatantly offensive free exercise of religion?
Post a Comment