ACLU Threatens Lawsuit If Students Get Suspended

Posted on April 19, 2006

Students at the Crocker School District have taken to expressing their 1st Amendment rights under the United States Constitution not by protesting as did the pro-illegal immigration nuts have, but rather by a simple t-shirt which says Students Against Bogle. The t-shirt protest comes after the resignation of the High School Principal Wayne Juliano.

The reason for Juliano’s resignation was that he “could not continue working with a superintendent who, he said, focuses on buildings, sports, and administrative matters rather than students.” And this has reflected in the response from the student body.

Two Crocker students, junior Sarah (“Red”) Brooks and sophomore Carol Wright, organized a protest by wearing T-shirts with the initials “S.A.B.” and signed by numerous fellow-students after Juliano resigned at the April 10 school board meeting.

Brooks and Wright say they were told on April 11 that their shirts were acceptable because they met school standards barring T-shirts with profane messages or advertisements for products such as alcohol. However, as the protest grew and another group of students planned to wear T-shirts supporting Bogle, school administrators decided Thursday to bar the T-shirts entirely. Wright and several other students say they were suspended; Brooks and at least one other student changed their shirt or turned it inside-out.

Crocker Elementary Principal Doug Jacobson, who has been performing some of the high school principal duties since Juliano’s resignation, said Thursday that the students were suspended for “disrupting the educational process.”

Let me get this straight. Students on both sides of the issue are expressing their 1st Amendment rights in a non-verbal manner, no violence has occurred in relation to the conflicting protests, and the t-shirts both pro and con Bogle do not violate the District’s dress code; so what’s the problem? Where do they get off suspending students for being involved in a civil debate?

That’s not acceptable, according to Anthony E. Rothert, legal director for the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, who said federal case law since a 1969 case known as “Tinker v. Des Moines” has allowed political speech by students such as wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. More recent cases have specifically allowed T-shirts with advocacy messages, including an Ohio case in which two students were disciplined for wearing T-shirts with Confederate flags to celebrate their southern heritage. That T-shirt was allowed on appeal by the federal court system.

Rothert said political or other advocacy speech in the school context falls into three different categories and he rarely sees schools attempting to prohibit “pure speech” — student-initiated comments that have the highest level of protection because they don’t involve any form of school sponsorship such as speeches at a graduation ceremony or articles in a student newspaper.

“This is clearly a case to which Tinker v. Des Moines would apply,” Rothert said. “I’m not aware of any statute that would give them a basis for thinking that content could be censored.”

While school officials have argued that the “Students Against Bogle” T-shirts are disruptive, Rothert said court cases don’t support that view.

“If you had rioting or blasting music requiring them to cancel classes, you could ban that if it disrupts the school,” Rothert said. “It has to be that it actually interferes with the running of the school, not just that it makes someone uncomfortable.”

We here at Stop The ACLU do not oppose every position that the ACLU takes. Most of the time we do because of fundamental differences in political position and method. But in this case we here at Stop The ACLU are taking the same position as the ACLU.

In fact, Rothert said, school authorities have an obligation to protect students wearing the “Students Against Bogle” T-shirts from anyone who might object or threaten violence.

“Students who have the opposite position absolutely have the right to wear T-shirts but no one has the right to threaten other students,” Rothert said. “It seems backward to punish students who are not threatening others because of those who are.”

Rothert faxed a letter to Crocker school authorities on Friday warning of serious consequences if the students aren’t allowed to wear their “Students Against Bogle” T-shirts to class today and don’t have Thursday’s disciplinary action expunged from their records.

“If the school district does not provide us these assurances, then we will have no choice but to pursue a court order protecting the students’ free speech rights,” Rothert wrote. “If litigation is necessary, be advised it is our position that school officials are not entitled to qualified immunity in this case. In addition, should we prevail in a federal lawsuit, the school district could be required to pay our attorneys fees and costs. It appears the students have already been harmed sufficiently that they have standing to pursue litigation; however, it is our desire to resolve this matter without requiring the school district to expend time and resources on litigation.”

Rothert said he has little doubt that the ACLU would win a lawsuit against Crocker.

“I think it’s a strong case; it does not appear to be a complicated case, it is governed by settled law and it is an opportunity for the school to learn about the Constitution and the protections that people in the military are fighting for,” Rothert said. “If students go with T-shirts on Tuesday and they are sent home, we would have to go immediately to court and get that reversed.”

These students are about to enter into their adulthood where they will be making decisions at the ballot box on local issues such as electing school board members and Superintendent. The schools are supposed to be teaching the students to think independently and make decisions on political positions which best suits their beliefs. These students are doing just that.

So this is a rare occasion where the ACLU and Stop The ACLU agree on an issue. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen.

We do hold some of the same goals. We believe in our founding documents. We differ in the interpretation of those documents.

We believe in a strict and narrow interpretation of the Constitution where the ACLU and it’s supporting members believe in a broad and liberal interpretation. But on this issue it is obvious that the school is unnecessarily restricting the free speech of the students which is a clear violation of their 1st Amendment rights of free speech.