In mid-October, Lydia Booth (L.B.), a third grade student in Simpson County School District located in Pinola, Mississippi, was denied the right to wear a face mask printedwith the words “Jesus Loves Me” (see picture below). Plaintiff L.B. was forced to change her mask by school officials because “she could not wear a mask with words on it”. The school district claimed that this was a violation of their Restart Plan originally posted in July that stated: “Masks will be required to be worn by students and all personnel in common spaces”. The plan was later modified shortly after L.B. wore her mask to add “(No political, religious, sexual or inappropriate statements are allowed on mask)”. However, L.B. and her family observed many students wearing masks with expressive messages on them such as Black Lives Matter. The school also has a Religious Speech Policy in which school officials can censor students from spreading offensive and/or disruptive messages. L.B.’s “Jesus Loves Me” mask does not violate that policy; the mask’s message did not cause any disruptions or distractions or provoke any disputes amongst members of the school. L.B. v. Simpson County School District questions if the mask statement in the Simpson County’s Restart Plan is a violation of students' free speech and free exercise of religion protected under the First Amendment.
L.B.’s mother, Jennifer Booth, was confused by the incident because it did not state anywhere that masks with words on them were disallowed. She contacted Principal Woodall who cited the dress code that prohibits “clothing advertising alcoholic beverages or drug culture, clothing with obscene language or gestures or clothing of any offensive nature”. Needless to say, L.B.’s mask did not violate the dress code by those standards. Booth then emailed Superintendent Sanders in which he cited the statement on masks in the Restart Plan. Booth was confused why she had not seen the portion regarding statements on masks before, and looked into the metadata on the website. She found that the part stating “(No political, religious, sexual or inappropriate statements are allowed on mask)” was added by Sanders less than an hour after receiving Booth’s email. The original version did not prohibit any messages on masks. A letter was sent out to the entire school district and included that this was only applicable to masks. When posed with the question of how masks are different from shirts, Sanders claimed that the message is “right in your face with a mask”.
In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students in public schools do not forfeit their rights upon entering the school. In this case, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, and were suspended for their actions. The Court concluded in a 7-2 decision that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”, and that schools are unable to restrict students’ rights of free speech unless it is disruptive. L.B.'s mask was not disruptive in any way, and makes a very innocent statement. If the Court upholds the precedent that students do not forfeit their First Amendment Rights upon entering school, then L.B.’s mask needs to be permitted by Simpson County School District.
I believe it is perfectly within L.B.’s First Amendment rights to wear a mask that says “Jesus Loves Me” to her public school. Simpson County School District claiming the mask was a violation of the dress code was incorrect; the mask clearly did not reference alcohol, drugs, or anything offensive. Furthermore, the notion that the message on a mask is different from a shirt because it is “right in your face” does not make sense. The compelling interest of a public school is to uphold a successful educational process without disruption. With the pandemic, it is also a compelling interest of the school to ensure students are wearing masks and being kept safe, and L.B. was abiding by those rules. L.B.’s mask did not cause any commotion in the school prior to being forced to change it. Therefore, the compelling interests of the school remain unaffected in this case. Ultimately, the Court needs to uphold the precedents set in similar cases, and allow L.B. to wear her “Jesus Loves Me” mask as it is her constitutional right.
2 comments:
I think it is notable how the mask did not disrupt the dress code standards, because nothing regarding religious affiliation was mentioned. I think that L.B. 's case is also strengthened by the fact that the principal added that no religious statements are permitted on students’ masks, an hour after her mother complained. I agree with your application of Tinker, although the mask’s message is blatantly religious, it is not disruptive and it was not cited that the mask caused any commotion before the school forced L.B. to change it. Because Tinker established that students do not forfeit their right to expression in a school setting and the school’s failure to address religious content in the original dress code, I agree that L.B. should be allowed to wear her mask.
I completely agree with the author. Based on the precedent set by Tinker, disruptive speech or behavior may be limited by the school, but as Lauren said, "Jesus loves me" does not fall into that category. The principal's changing of the rules after the fact to retroactively punish L.B., while allowing students to wear masks with other non-religious messages, blatantly singles out religion in an unconstitutional way. I wrote about a similar case earlier in the semester in which a student wore a shirt that said "homosexuality is a sin," which is undeniably divisive and based on Tinker, I said that the school should be allowed to prevent that speech because they have an interest to protect the wellbeing of students and the learning environment. However, in this case there does not seem to be any kind of overriding school interest, given that her mask is not disruptive, and therefore she should be allowed to wear it.
Post a Comment