From ACLU legal research found in an April 12, 2004 letter written to Bay City,
MI school system administrators by ACLU, Michigan, Legal Director, Michael J. Steinberg, <a href="http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15672&c=159">(Link to page with wordpad doc.)</a>
Quote:
The courts have made it very clear that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 507. Administrators are forbidden from censoring students for political speech or expression unless they can demonstrate that the forbidden conduct would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” Id. at 509, 513. The Supreme Court was careful to point out that an “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” Id. at 508. “Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance.” Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200, 211 (3rd Cir. 2001). Typically, what is required is a “well-founded expectation of disruption – especially one based on past incidents arising out of similar speech . . . .” Id. at 212.
Thus, in Tinker, school officials violated students’ right to wear a black armband to protest the Vietnam War even though there was a strong pro-war sentiment among students and staff. Similarly, in Castorina v. Madison Co. Sch. Bd., 246 F.2d 536, 540 (6th Cir. 2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals held that even though many find the Confederate flag to be a racist symbol, school officials cannot ban shirts displaying the Confederate flag absent evidence that such speech causes or threatens material and substantial interference with a school’s educational environment. Relying on Tinker and Castorina, U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Duggan recently held that the Dearborn Schools violated a student’s right to wear a shirt calling President Bush an international terrorist even though he wore the shirt on the eve of the Iraq War, there were a large number of Iraqis favoring the war in the school, and the terrorist alert level had just been raised to “high.” Barber, 286 F.Supp.2d at 856-58.
|
(Kentucky is also located in the 6th Federal Circuit Court Jurisdiction, a
fact that provides a more compelling argument that the school system should
have abided by the 6th District Court's recent rulings) <a href="http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/ky/laws.html">findlaw.com</a>
Since I am an ardent supporter of free speech rights, I'll revise my opinion
by supporting the court ruling cited above, since it is obvious that a school
sponsored social event such as a dance or a prom is extra curricular and
thus cannot "cause or threaten material and substantial interference with a school’s educational environment".
Since it was not difficult for me as an ordinary member of the public to
obtain the legal research quoted above, the Kentucky school administrators
seem to have been derelict in not seeking and or not abiding by the most
recent and most authoritative court rulings before restricting the rights
of the student who wore the stars and bars dress. It appears now to me
that she has a strong civil case and is entitled to seek monetary damages
from the school system as a remedy for it's illegal restriction of her rights.