Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
What can a school allow/disallow?
We have quite a few lawyers/knowledgeable people in the forums, and I have a question to ask before I raise a fit.
Recently, I got my lip pierced (I'll make a separate thread for my piercing if I think we need it.), and by recently, I mean 4 days ago. Anyway, I read in the paper today that this year my school will be cracking down on things more than they have before, like tucking our shirt-tails in and, get this, facial piercings!
What I would like to know is, is this legal, and do I have to comply? I have my school handbook on hand, so I can refer to it and answer any questions that are put forth.
The last thing I would like to add, is that it seems that this is a new rule, and I've never heard anything like this at my school before.
So please help me!
Recently, I got my lip pierced (I'll make a separate thread for my piercing if I think we need it.), and by recently, I mean 4 days ago. Anyway, I read in the paper today that this year my school will be cracking down on things more than they have before, like tucking our shirt-tails in and, get this, facial piercings!
What I would like to know is, is this legal, and do I have to comply? I have my school handbook on hand, so I can refer to it and answer any questions that are put forth.
The last thing I would like to add, is that it seems that this is a new rule, and I've never heard anything like this at my school before.
So please help me!
Comments
Private/Charter = You loose.
Public = Depends. Sometimes this can be fought as a free-speech issue. What does your school handbook say about the dress code?
However, I would still like for anyone to post here and tell your opinions and/or legal know-how on the subject.
The problem with the handbook, is that there is this "or anything that is determined inappropriate by the principal" tacked onto the list of things we can't wear. I think that kind of gets everything.
However, Tinker v. Des Moines hasn't been particularly effective in safeguarding the rights of students because we don't believe in freedom in the United States anymore.
The school can disallow things like vulgar t-shirts, tattoos, piercings, etc. that disrupt or distract from the educational environment of the school.
Is it really that important to you to have your lip piercing show at school? Since you just recently had it done, do you have to keep it in for a certain amount of time?
I live in Alabama, and I'm 17, if that helps any.
There is nothing wrong with advocating breaking a law. If someone is successfully prosecuted for breaking the law, then they are rebuked by the judicial system. Had I been alive during the 1960s, I would have advocated peaceful obstruction of justice as a method of protest against civil rights abuses.
See also Bethel v. Fraser. Sometimes you have to break the rules in order to prove your point.
Of course, for that to work, you need to have the support of your parents.
<---- Not a lawyer. Don't construe anything I say as legal advice.
As for the Hitler Youth pin, I clearly stated that you have to make a political statement that isn't vulgar. You have to find a way to not be offensive or create a disturbance while still making a political statement. If you do that, and they come down on you, you should have a good chance of being protected by the first amendment.
<--- just a podcaster, not a lawyer. But which is worse?
The Court wrote in Tinker that "the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to 'pure speech' which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment." Tinker at 506. They weren't talking about "[t]The problem posed by . . . regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, [393 U.S. 503, 508] to hair style, or deportment." Id. at 508.
The Court said specifically that it "has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools." Id. at 507. Schools can control what people wear and what people have for piercings and tattoos to control conduct to provide for a non-disruptive educational environment.
Except find one that everyone won't think is teh lolz.
Tinker also said speech could only be prohibited by school administrators if they could show that it would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission:
"In the present case, the District Court made no such finding, and our independent examination of the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students."
A piercing, likewise, would not substantially interfere with the work or impinge on the rights of other students.
Tinker goes on to say that the government should have very limited control over student speech:
"In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend."
And, once again, what is Blood's speech? What sort of injunctive relief? What pre-existing condition? Don't mash-up disability law and constituional law. A piercing is not like a lymphoma.
It is a good idea to talk to the principal. If Blood is reasonable and tells the principal that he didn't know about the piercing ban and now needs time to keep the piercing in, the principal might be reasonable as well.
Aside from that, Blood is 17. He doesn't have many civil rights to begin with. He certainly doesn't have the right to wear a piercing forbidden by the dress code. Especially not in a public school in Alabama.
If the principal doesn't let him off the hook, Blood would have a much easier time of it if he made peace with losing the forty dollars. Either that or wear a bandana around his lower face until he can take the piercing out. The dress code doesn't say anything about that, does it?
His speech is his piercing, which is included as free speech, or "freedom of expression." When challenged, public school dress codes have been found to be illegal because dress is protected as a form of speech.
In both Tinker (win) and Bethel (loss) injunctive relief was sought from the district court against punitive measure placed upon the plaintive by the defendant (school administration).
If a school rule is published that bans piercing after a piercing has been made, then it can't be reasonably argued that the student has broken the dress code.
It doesn't matter if he is 17. Students do not shed constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.
I'm not sure what Alabama has to do with it. Is it somehow exempt from the Constitution?
I'm still not persuaded that the piercing itself has any value as speech. At least the shirts in your article had writing on them. What does Mr. Blood's piercing say? If it says, "Vote for Obama", then maybe it should be protected. If it says, "Free piercing at the mall", it is entitled to far less protection.
As far as injunctive relief, a court would need to know what sort of irreparable harm Mr. Blood would suffer by what sort of action by the school. We know neither, so it's a little too early to start talking about injunctions. If Mr. Blood has the time, energy, and money to take his case to the Supreme Court for a forty dollar piercing, the fact that his school is in Alabama may not matter at all. However, while he remains in Alabama I predict that he will lose and lose and lose.
I much prefer the courtroom antics of one Mr. Alan Shore, however, Mr. Hungry:
Once I had a crappy little Trafficking trial. It was only two days long, and the Commonwealth rested at the end of the first day. I had one witness besides my defendant.
On the morning of the second day, I had to run around district court doing a lot of little things before I could get back up to circuit. I ended up being late. The judge was a crotchety old guy and he said when I came in, "Mr. Render, after the close of evidence today we shall have a brief HEARING in my chambers.", all the time glaring at me like Bodhidharma glared at the cliff. I knew he was gonna hold me in contempt for being late.
So I put my one witness up. I asked, "You didn't want to come here today, did you?" He said no, he didn't. I said, "In fact, I had to go out and get you myself, didn't I?" Total gamble, but I thought he would take it that I was asking him whether I had to subpoena him and I was gonna be held in contempt anyway. He said, yes. The judge looked up and I could see that he thought I was late because I was rousting out this witness. We didn't have the hearing and I wasn't found in contempt.
Lots of courtroom stuff was dull and boring, but every now and then, something like that would happen.
Once when she was in high school she had a shock of her hair colored purple. No one noticed it for a long time, but one day she was called into the principal's office and told to go home and have it taken out. She said, "Okay, but I paid $30.00 for it. Reimburse me $30.00 and I'll take it out." They got all yadded and mad and decided to call her father.
Her father was in trial. He was really angry when he arrived at the school and said, "Goddammit Carole, what have you done this time?!!" She said, "Dad, they want me to take the color out of my hair." He said "What?" He hadn't even noticed. Carole showed him and said, "They want me to take this color out of my hair after I paid $30.00 for it." He looked at the the principal and said, "Jesus Christ! Give her the $30.00 and she'll take it out. Now don't call me again unless it's important." Then he stood up and left. Carole got her $30.00, washed the purple color out of her hair, and everyone was happy. It would be more likely to be treated as speech too. The speech in that case would be a protest against the piercing restriction.