In the midst of the Iraq War, a 12-year-old girl attending a middle school in the Schenectady, New York Central School District began wearing a red-white-and-blue beaded necklace. She wore the necklace to display her support for soldiers in Iraq and, more specifically, her family members serving in the war overseas. Officials at her school told her she could not wear the necklace because it might be "gang-related" and thus violated the school's dress code. When the school told her that if she didn't remove the necklace she would face disciplinary action, her family filed suit in federal court.
The school district, after failing to have the suit dismissed, agreed to an out-of-court settlement with the family. At the time, Eric Ely, an assistant superintendent in the school district, was a named defendant. Today, Eric, now the superintendent, may be a defendant again.
Thirteen year-old Raymond Hosier, a seventh grader at Oneida Middle School in Schenectady, New York, who has never been considered a rabble rouser, recently began wearing a rosary around his neck. He says he wears the beads "for my uncle and my brother and because I'm religious. My brother died almost five years ago, from getting hit by a car. My uncle died about two and a half weeks ago from brain cancer." When the school told him he had to take off the beads because they might be "gang-related," Raymond told them that it was for his brother and uncle, and that he's a Christian who should be allowed to wear them. Raymond was not trying to start a constitutional controversy; the rosary was simply something he wore to help him cope with two difficult losses. The particular rosary he wears was the same rosary the family placed in his late brother's hand when he was in the hospital following the car accident that ultimately took his life.
The school officials, showing no sympathy for Raymond's explanation, gave him two options: remove the rosary or go home. Raymond chose the latter, and when he arrived at school the next day with the rosary still on, he was suspended for two days. After the weekend, when Raymond came back to school with the rosary on again, he was suspended indefinitely.
This school district is not only violating Raymond's constitutional rights but also impeding his education. As it turns out, Raymond knows a lot more about his constitutional rights than the school's officials and has decided to fight them in court. Supreme Court precedent and the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) are on his side, while the school has taxpayer-funded attorneys on theirs.
The United States Supreme Court, in a landmark 1969 case commonly referred to as Tinker, held that students do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they attend school. The opinion, authored by Justice Abe Fortas, stated:
First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.
At the height of the Vietnam War, students in Des Moines, Iowa were suspended from their public school for wearing black armbands in protest of US involvement in the war. The school argued that the armbands were "disruptive" and thus an inappropriate accessory. The Supreme Court strongly disagreed and described the armbands as "closely akin to 'pure speech' which ... is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment."
The Schenectady Central School District now faces four major problems: First, the district and current superintendent have already experienced an embarrassing incident when it had to settle with the young girl told to remove her patriotic beads. Now, the district is being embarrassed at the national level.
Second, the school district's dress code policy could face constitutional scrutiny. We have reviewed it at the ACLJ and are certain that the "bans" it includes are unconstitutionally vague. The code says that "a student's dress ... shall ... not denote, represent or be deemed to be gang-related, included but not limited to bandanas, colors, flags or beads." The school suspended Raymond under the "beads" ban, but think about the other vague terms used in this dress code. For instance, who deems something to be "gang-related"? Red and blue are well-known gang colors; therefore, could the school ban the wearing of those colors altogether? Lump together the "colors" ban and the "flags" ban and this school district could ban the American flag. Think this is outlandish? Don't forget what happened to students in California who were sent home for wearing American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo.
Third, under established Supreme Court precedent, Raymond has First Amendment rights just like any other student in the public schools. A Jewish student should never be told to remove a yamaka nor a Muslim to remove a hijab.
The school district's fourth problem is Raymond. Unlike many young teenagers who would probably decide to follow the commands of school authorities rather than be suspended, Raymond decided to take a stand and dared the school district to stick to its guns. Schenectady Central School District and Oneida Middle School have until tonight to respond to the ACLJ's demand letter, let Raymond return to school, and clear his record. If the school district does not meet his demands, the district and its officials will find themselves in federal court next week.
Like many students before him, Raymond knew that sometimes you have to fight the system. Our hope is that his fight, now garnering national attention, will force school administrators to think twice before fighting the student.
What About Religious Expression? - DiversityInc.com
Archived: Secretary's Statement on Religious Expression
Religious freedom - What is legally permissible for students in ...
If that is true and verifiable, the young man has no choice but to wear it UNDER his shirt, (as he should have in the first place) or to not wear it at all in school. I don't think he's got a case, only because schools have the "Zero Tolerance" line of rules when it comes to certain things, and for good or bad, that's just the way it is.
IMO, the fact that he insisted on wearing it 'displayed' and not under his shirt pretty much screams of ulterior motives and rabble-rousing. I like a good rabble rouser myself, but there's a time and place for everything, but public school isn't it.
Imagine if these kids just wore their rosary or cross without using them to either proselyte or decided who is "saved"... Imagine if they DIDN'T condemn those that refused to wear a cross or express their faith....
Now imagine if the parent of these kids DIDN'T raise hell or complain when say a Wiccan wears their own symbols, or a kid wears a gay pride necklace.
What many in the religious community never seem to grasp is that their own action, meaning that intolerance of others, forces the school to do blanket bans on things (under the guise of 'gang symbols' no less) all to keep from having to field their basely complaints.
In short, by trying to censor one view, you end up silencing yourself.
And as an atheist myself, I say let the kid wear his rosary as long as you let any other faith/belief symbol be worn too.
I think those schools are more secular because they don't have this weird attitude when it comes to religion. Just like prohibition of soft drugs, the prohibition of religious expression creates more tension and conflicts than no prohibition. Look, I'm not advocating that we should introduce school prayer or allow teachers to proselyte.
I say we should relax those rules. Teachers, and other staff must not express their religious views, but students should have the right to do so outside class, during the breaks and maybe sometimes in class e.g. during a debate in ethics or history. At the same time, teachers would continue keep a close eye on students and punish any form of discrimination because of religious or non-religious beliefs.
I don't oppose prayer in school, I just think it should be fair, you know, Jewish prayers, Muslim prayers, Hindu prayers, etc...
You know the Religion courses are more like the "history of religion." The curriculum comes from the government which means it is pro secularism by nature. Schools generally offer Protestantism, Catholicism and Philosophy giving you the choice between one of them. Some schools offer Islam, and Buddhism, too. The curriculum is drafted by the government btw. Back to my point. I took Protestantism, the most liberal class and you learn everything about Christianity, including the long dark ages, Papal scandals, etc. all the stuff spoi.led evangelical children never get to know. There was no mention of creationism, not even in religion classes and you can always refer to other religions. And no, we were not required to read the Bible. :-)
I really think the US should offer those classes. It would open sutdent's minds to interpretations beyond what the local pastor or the parents say, at least an atheist one (Philosophy) and one religious one the (History of Religion).
What gang would Jesus join?
Unfortunately we live in a country where fairness must be consistently applied even though it doesn't create fairness across the board. This is a obvious example. Raymond deserves to be able to wear the rosary, his reasons are legitimate as well as commendable. From the schools perspective the rule is in place for a legitimate reason as well and as a school that promotes discipline I don't see them wanting to make an exception to the rule for one student, because if you make an exception for one than administration loses credibility amongst other students who feel their self-expression is just as important as Raymond's. I see both sides of the conflict.
Bottom line there were definitely less restrictive means available than an indefinite suspension, or even sending him home in the first place. The goal is education and student can't receive an adequate level if they are not allowed to attend. Suspension as a cure all solution to uncooperative students sends the wrong message, out-of-school suspensions that is. It shows a lack of concern for the student, it says "I don't care enough about you to want to deal with you". Well, why be in education anyway? I think the field Education Administration isn't given the attention it desperately needs. The Gov is currently concerned with spending money on defense than to provide the necessary educational background for our future problem solvers. Lets seriously leave no child behind.
This student is exercising their right to freedom of symbolic speech. They have that right, and this school is foolish to try and stop them from doing so.
However, The school code is NOT vague. It is very clear. Gang symbols are well known to anyone who works in education, and saying you are going to ban anything deemed gang-related is a very specific set of symbol and color combinations related to violent groups. He's using the pretty common "slippery slope" logical fallacy (If you ban anything red and anything blue for any reason, then you could ban the flag). This line of thinking is a result of his politics, not accepted legal scholarship.
J. Sekulow and the ACLJ are both well known abusers of constitutional principles to try and force religion into the public sphere. Don't be fooled, the ACLJ, unlike the ACLU, is a one issue organization that is not dedicated to "human rights," rather it is dedicated to the "rights" of christians to dominate everyone else. Even though I agree with him in this situation, I harbor no misconceptions about his extremist views on religious freedom (more appropriately termed "Christian domination").
I see many school administrations, both in college and before, pressuring students to be exclusively "good little boys and girls," and discouraging any dissent or controversy. Sekelow noted the California case regarding people wearing clothes with the American flag - that's not just politics; it's the reality of the situation students find themselves today. Other controversies (I can't go into details for personal obligations) are advisors/coaches who don't like what a student does outside the group, and bars them from the "privilege."