For assistance with
this database contact us at information@school-training.com or
at 800-365-0119.
Return to SR-TI Article Index
Title:
Court: Educators Win Censorship Question (again)
Studentís T-Shirt had Anti-Bush Slogans and Cocaine Imagery
Author:
Tim McClure
ID:
LL129
Issue:
SU2-2
Issue Date:
2005-03-01
Edition:
School
Type:
Article
Body:
In a December 2004 decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont upheld a middle schoolís right to prohibit its students from wearing clothing that depicts images of drugs and alcohol. The court, however, found that disciplining the student because the word ìcocaineî appeared on the studentís T-shirt violated his free speech rights under the first and 14th Amendments. See Guiles v. Marineau, 349 F. Supp. 2d 871.††
In the spring of 2004, Zachary Guiles was a seventh-grade student at Williamstown Middle High School who on several occasions wore a T-shirt to school that was highly critical of President George W. Bush and his policies. The shirt had a variety of images and words that made reference to the presidentís drunk-driving conviction, the war in Iraq, his association with the energy interests, and his alleged use of illicit drugs. One witness at trial described the shirt as being very ìbusy.î The court wrote: ìThere is no question that, as a whole, the T-shirt communicates a very strong political message of disapproval (if not disdain and outright loathing) of the President's character and policies.î
School officials allowed Zach to wear the shirt on several occasions until officials noticed that the shirt bore small images of drugs and alcohol. At that point, a school official told Zach to make one of three choices: tape over the drug images and the word ìcocaine;î turn the shirt inside out; or put on another shirt. Zach contacted his father and the two met that day with school officials regarding the issue. There was no resolution and Zach wore the shirt to school the next day. When Zach refused to take measures to cover the drug symbols and words, he was issued a written reprimand and sent home.
Zach wore the shirt to school the following day, but had the drug symbols and the word ìcocaineî covered with duct tape. Zach had written the word ìcensoredî on each piece of tape. A school official told Zach the shirt was now acceptable. About two weeks later, Zach and his parentís filed suit against the school district contesting the legality of its actions with respect to Zachís constitutional right to freedom of expression.
In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the Supreme Court has held a studentís expressive rights must be balanced against educators' need to maintain discipline and create a positive learning environment. The court concluded that the central question was whether the school district acted to censor a viewpoint or whether it acted to censor a form of speech that is inappropriate for the middle school environment.
In its analysis, the court considered evidence presented at trial that established that schools have a great interest in discouraging drug use among students. It also found credible a witnessís testimony that depictions of drugs on shirts can send messages encouraging drug use ñ even if the message appears to be a negative one. Accordingly, the court felt compelled to defer to the judgment of educators on this issue. It held: ìAs long as a school is not censoring political content, school officials may prohibit dress bearing images of drugs and alcohol as inappropriate for the school environment.î Accordingly, Zach was not entitled to an injunction allowing him to wear his T-shirt without tape covering the displays of drugs and alcohol.
However, the court found that images of drugs or alcohol could not be treated the same as textual content. The court said that on the day Zach was sent home, he was punished partly because the word ìcocaineî appeared on his shirt. In contrast to the evidence regarding the potential harm caused by drug and alcohol images, there was no evidence that the word cocaine would be harmful or disruptive. Accordingly, the court found that Zach was given a choice between expressing his views about President Bushís drug use or going home and that his viewpoint ñ as opposed to his manner of expression ñ was being censored. To rectify this infringement on his rights, the court ordered the school to expunge Zachís reprimand in this case.
When balancing studentsí rights against a schoolís interest in maintaining order and discipline, the courts closely examine a schoolís justification for implementing rules and regulations. The more thoroughly a school documents its reasons for restricting studentsí freedoms, the more likely it will succeed if a policy is challenged.