“Students do not shed their first amendment rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate”
Any violation of this ruling by school faculty in a public school gives you an easy win in court, gives that you aren’t
A: Trampling other’s rights with your actions
B: “Materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” (Emphasis on ‘Materially’)
It’s also important to note that private schools are not under any obligation to follow this ruling, which is why political attire is banned entirely in many private schools in favor of either uniforms or strictly enforced dress codes.
so technically, nothing legal has happened yet. but as our school year is starting, my school board district added a new dress code rule that i believe violates students’ constitutional rights. the new rule states
“Styles of dress and grooming never should be such that they represent a collective or individual protest.”
i had to do an entire project on tinker v des moines and im guessing (and also a bit hoping) this rule violates it. can anyone help me out here?
If I were to wear a 1312 necklace in spite of a particularly smelly, douchey lawman that roams the halls of my high school, my right to wear that in the walls of that state-run, publicly-funded facility would be untouchable because of the Supreme Court ruling in Tinker V. Des Moines, correct?
And if the school administration decides that I can’t wear said necklace, do I have a case for a potential paycheck?
And, this is probably a stretch but, in the case that one of the school cops choose to make a pointed, disrespectful comment regarding the ideology of my attire, do I have the right to make a pointed, disrespectful comment about their line of work without school faculty punishing me for it?
For those not “in the loop,” so to speak, when a group of students wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war back in the late sixties, school admins chose to ban the black armband. In response, those students wore black clothing and started a massive first amendment lawsuit. In said lawsuit, the Supreme Court ruled that, and I quote, “students do not shed their first amendment rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.”
Hello SCOTUS fans. I host a podcast and for my latest episode, I got to sit down with Mary Beth Tinker, the plaintiff of Tinker v. Des Moines, which became the landmark Supreme Court ruling regarding students and teachers First Amendment rights in educational institutions. Talked to her about her story behind the case and talked about the state of today’s democracy. I think y’all would enjoy this! Link below!
"Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom -- this kind of openness -- that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society."
Serious question, all I hear on this sub and elsewhere is how great the school districts in the suburbs are. Besides housing costs being high and diversity being low... those who have had recent experience going through the “good” districts or who currently have kids in the system, what do you dislike or even outright hate about them?
What are your thoughts on the rights we afford to students in the classroom? Too little? Too much? Etc. Non-Americans feel free to chime in as well.
https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression
I'm asking on behalf of my SO, who is planning to attend some sort of job fair for the school district tomorrow. Apparently they're looking to fill quite a few positions, but I was curious if anyone with any experience had something to say regarding the school district or the job fair itself. I know nothing about it, and I feel like it's quite odd for them to be boasting such high starting salaries (as much as $40,000 according to the website.) Is turnover high? Will this be something she'll regret? Inquiring minds must know!
Most of the sites are covering the fact that Texas became the 3rd state to have a ruling against anti-BDS legislation. We had a BDSer who wanted to post on this issue. Article had severe IP violations which required removal and the author wouldn't correct but I think the topic is worth discussing. First a link to the order by the judge: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cairhq/pages/1125/attachments/original/1556232266/2019-04-25_Order_Granting__dckt_82_0_.pdf
Now onto the editorial. This was a clear cut victory for racial hatred in a way the previous two cases were not. In the previous cases the states had created weak circumstances and had argued the law poorly. The losses could be attributed to poor lawyering. In Texas Ken Paxton (Attorney General of the State of Texas) filed a clear cut well argued counter motion supporting the school district, with the arguments that most anti-BDSers would have wanted to hear, the judge considered them and they still lost for clear constitutional reasons. There is one exception I'll point out below.
In passing HB 89 (the anti-BDS bill) the sponsors offered 4 reasons: > First, as a Christian, my religious heritage is intrinsically linked to Israel and to the Jewish people. Second, as an American, our national security is dependent in great part on a strong Israel, often our only friend in the Middle East. Third, as a Texas legislator, our state has a substantial Jewish population and this issue is important to them. Texans have historical ties and do a lot of business with Israel. Fourth, it’s just the right thing to do.
First the ACLU, Palestine legal... found individuals who otherwise would have been hired but were not because they refused to sign the no anti-BDS pledge and clearly lost either work opportunity or compensation due to their refusal. Issues of standing were resolved. However, like in Kansas where the law applied to individuals the law applies to sole proprietorships. Under Texas law like most states a sole proprietor has no legal existence apart from his sole proprietorship (i.e. it is not a full corporation). Thus the law as written did apply to individuals. The application of the law to sole proprietorships (legally actual persons) is what created the initial problems since those actual persons have constitutional rights (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood). Like Kansas Texas should have required that contractors including at the municipal level be LLCs,
... keep reading on reddit ➡