Appeals Court: Naperville Teen Can Wear Anti-Gay Shirt To School

In 2006, Naperville's Neuqua Valley High School allowed students to participate in a nationwide "Day of Silence," which promotes tolerance of the gay community. While some students decided to wear shirts that expressed that tolerance, one student showed up in a shirt that read: "Be Happy, Not Gay."

School administrators demanded the student, 17-year-old Heidi Zamecnik, either remove the shirt or be sent home for the day, according to the Naperville Sun. The school ultimately settled on blacking out the "Not Gay" portion of the shirt, leaving it to read "Be Happy."

Zamecnik, however, was not pleased with the change. After the incident, she filed a lawsuit against the school district claiming they violated her civil rights by not allowing her to express her opposition to homosexuality.

"Pursuant of her earnest religious convictions, Heidi sought a way to communicate her belief that homosexual conduct doesn't lead to happiness," Zamecnik's lawyer Nate Kellum told MTV when the suit was filed in 2007. "She wanted to wear a T-shirt communicating that idea."

On Tuesday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Kellum.

The Naperville Sun reports:

In its opinion, the court said a "school that permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality."

"The school argued (and still argues) that banning 'Be Happy, Not Gay' was just a matter of protecting the 'rights' of the students against whom derogatory comments are directed," the court said. "But people in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life."

Zamecnik was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group. The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a brief on the student's behalf that said her 1st Amendment rights had been violated , according to the Chicago Tribune.

In the opinion, the judge writes that the defense provided "no indication" of how the shirt would negatively effect homosexual students . Read the opinion here.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story indicated that the ACLU filed an opposing brief in the case. In fact, they sided with the student citing a 1st Amendment rights violation. We apologize for the error.

Comments

[marind]

10:25 AM on 04/13/2011

Wonder what would have happened if the shirt had read: "Be white, not black"?

[jjjuice]

12:04 AM on 03/22/2011

What parents approve of a girl who hates people? Gays are equal. Let's all agree to that. If we don't then I guess we have to wait cuz time does favor the gays.

[jjjuice]

11:36 PM on 03/21/2011

Heidi says gays are bad. Um...Heidi who?? And really, who cares what Heidi says? I sure don't.

[jjjuice]

11:34 PM on 03/21/2011

Hate others, like me.

[jjjuice]

11:33 PM on 03/21/2011

Be happy, not heterosexual.

[henrypapillon]

10:33 AM on 03/08/2011

The high school version of Fred Phelps and the Wesboro Baptist Church? Nice. Her parents must be so happy their little girl is growing up. What next, killing puppies?

[Teach4Equality]

12:06 AM on 03/07/2011

The counter argument I'm hearing to this girl being censored is that, if a student were to wear a gay pride shirt, then it has to accept an anti-gay shirt. That is quite possibly the most ridiculous argument ever. The situations are not equal. In one situation, a student is showing love for who they are in a positive way. In the other situation, a student is making a statement at another student's expense. These are not equal. I would say the same thing if a gay student wore a shirt that said "be smart, not Christian" while another student had a shirt that said "I love Christ". Having pride for one's self and being proud of demeaning others are clearly distinguishable, where one is acceptable and the other is not.

[sdmcmla]

03:05 AM on 03/07/2011

Except that the Christian believes that he is showing love for the gay "sinner" by exhorting him to forgo homosexual actions.  The Christian believes that the gay person will only find hapiness in Christ, which requires that the gay person cease to act on his "base" homosexual desires.  So the Christian believes that his actions are the actions of one who is concerned for his fellow man and wants to see him saved through Christ.   So, from the viewpoint of the Christian, the actions of the Christian are more righteous than the prideful statement of the student wearing the gay pride shirt, because the Christian is trying to save his fellow man.  
 
The problem with your post is that you are intolerant of a religious belief and religious actions that do not comport with your views of what is acceptable.  In that respect, your actions are not distinguishable from the actions of the anti-gay shirt-wearer. 

[coolHappyMax]

01:49 PM on 03/07/2011

"Th Christian believes"..is that sorta like the Rapist believed that the victim really liked it? Is that the defense?

I believe that actions, not intentions, should be subject to scrutiny. The particular superstition of the offending party isn't relevant: only their actions are.

[Teach4Equality]

07:29 PM on 03/08/2011

You're entitled to believe whatever you want. Nobody is threatening that, but when your beliefs take shape in ways that are threatening to another student (i.e. tell them not to be who they are through a t-shirt), then it is the school's responsibility to make sure that the proper consequences are administered. It is their job to provide a safe environment for all students. If the Christian students were the subject of gay person's shirt in a negative way, I would support the school administering the same consequences.

That being said, you can't turn the situation around and pretend that the Christian student was threatened here, because it's simply not the case. It shows your complete bias. My post, however, was calling for fairness when any group of people were the object of discrimination. If you can't see that, then you never will and this conversation is pointless.

[henrypapillon]

10:35 AM on 03/08/2011

Maybe that is what some kids should wear, to get people's mindset straight----"be smart, be nice, not Christian."

[sdmcmla]

10:04 AM on 03/09/2011

There are many people who are not Christians because of the blatant hypocrisy, so you won't have a problem finding people to buy such shirts.  Freedom of Speech cuts both ways.

[Teach4Equality]

11:47 PM on 03/06/2011

Where does this end? Is it okay for a student to wear a "Jews are anti-Christ" shirt? Is it okay for a student to wear a "Be smart, not Christian" shirt? What about a "gay is bashing is fun" shirt? After all, we shouldn't sensor speech.

We've seen the influence of what seemingly harmless messages can have on behavior (i.e. Tuscon, AZ shootings). Eventually the minority groups that are the subject of these shirts are dehumanized and it becomes socially acceptable to treat them accordingly. Was this the vision of free speech that our founding fathers had in mind?

My final thought is, as a teacher myself, students don't have free speech. There are necessary rules in place that prohibit students from saying whatever they want because they are not adults and do not understand the consequences of their words and actions. This young girl has the rest of her life to make gay people feel unequal. Is it really necessary for her to vocalize that idea to the most impressionable and insecure segment of the population (i.e. teens)?

[DaBluAce]

03:16 AM on 03/07/2011

spot on!

[bayyaan]

09:50 AM on 03/06/2011

I agree withe the right to reject gays behaviour, which is the reason for the suicides-they are NOT happy-nor healthy-how could you put that there!!!!!

[LittleRedEngine]

07:22 PM on 04/14/2011

how do you know who is happy? And healthy? You think blind religious folk are happy and healthy? I think not.. look at how miserable they are.

[Redstripe36]

06:55 PM on 03/05/2011

I think it's pretty ridiculous that they can allow this. I realize that anyone who opposes equal rights for homosexuals is going to defend the shirt by saying it doesn't attack those who do believe we should be given all the same rights, however it's obviously predatory. And though I don't believe in God, I do know that those who TRULY believe profess that God loves everybody. Other people use his name as a bazooka - to attack down anyone they feel is inferior to them.

[Greeniz810]

01:07 PM on 03/05/2011

So in California, you can wear ha te but not fly an American flag? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po7k5O9LtBo

[SirCoolBreeze]

09:01 AM on 03/05/2011

The "Bong Hits for Jesus" ruling means the Supreme Court will strike this down. You'd think.

[Epilef2000]

02:45 PM on 03/05/2011

if precedent means something..though its hard to tell with a conservative wing..mixed with homosexual themese

[sdmcmla]

03:09 AM on 03/07/2011

Not necessarily, since one of the reasons for the Bong Hits outcome was the fact that the shirt was advocating for an activity that is illegal and therefore contrary to the school's mission to teach their students to uphold the laws.

[Pinkasaurus]

03:28 AM on 03/05/2011

I am not sure how I feel about the ruling, but I question the "Christianity" of this girl. Why do some so-called Christians feel the need to be hateful to others? That is completely contrary to the spirit of Christianity. Homosexual students face bigotry pretty much every day, so I don't see why it is necessary to wear a shirt proclaiming how much you are against their sexual orientation.

[coolHappyMax]

01:51 PM on 03/07/2011

Because conservative Christians hate the teachings of Christ.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html

[Michael Morrison]

12:15 AM on 03/05/2011

If the only speech we protect is that which is agreeable to us, and If we do not protect speech we find hateful, then of what use is "Free Speech?"

[Mr Anonymous]

10:10 PM on 03/05/2011

Exactly. I don't agree with what she has to say, but she has the right to say it. A lot of tolerant people are only tolerant toward other tolerant people. But, as soon as someone says something they don't like, it is amazing to see how intolerant they can become.

[sdmcmla]

03:10 AM on 03/07/2011

Bingo.

[gilbskg]

01:48 PM on 03/04/2011

Years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that students in the school setting do not have the same civil rights as they do when they leave the building.

[Christopher Bowen]

03:35 PM on 03/04/2011

True. Many school dress codes talk about clothing that is distracting to learning. The shirt, regardless of what you might believe, is definitely a distraction during the school day. Just out of curiosity, what do you think might happen if a kid wore a shirt that said, Be White, Not (some other race)...would the ruling be the same?

Chris Bowen
http://teacher2teacher.lacoe.edu/a-fresh-dreamer.aspx

[gilbskg]

03:50 PM on 03/04/2011

I would think so.

[sdmcmla]

03:14 AM on 03/07/2011

Well, the distraction angle would have had a better chance of success, but, from the ruling, it appears that the school did not put forward any evidence indicating that the statement on the shirts would harm homosexuals.  Since the court will only rule on the evidence presented, this argument will have to be decided by some other court. 

[Jon Polm]

03:25 AM on 03/05/2011

Bong Hits for Jesus right?