Aaron Caffarel MC 3080 Critical Thinking Essay One Professor Day The First Amendment and Harding High

Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, scholars and politicians alike have grappled with the meaning and application of the First Amendment. While seemingly simple and absolute, countless new circumstances force the Supreme Court to examine the amendment in order to fully interpret and apply it. In this particular new circumstance, members of the Harding High cheerleading squad displayed a Bible verse on their uniforms during one of their performances at a public football game. After receiving one complaint from an Atheist family, the school administration ordered the squad to remove the Christian reference prior to the next performance. The issue now lies in court awaiting a possible injunction. With the small amount of information presented concerning this case, I believe the students have the right to display religious messages under the precedent established by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. In this case, several questions of fact remain. Was the origin for the idea to display the verse from the students themselves or from a moderator or faculty member? Did every cheerleader acquiesce without reservation to this action? Was there any immediate display of general anger or aggression from the student population at the game toward the action? My opinion rests on the following assumptions: the students collectively wished to engage in this action unanimously and there was no general anger or aggression from the students or parents given the information that only one set of parents called to complain. Following these assumptions, no cheerleader was forced to wear the verse against her will or religious beliefs and thus no religious freedom was

suspended. In addition, there are no evident signs that a severe disturbance will emanate from this action from the student populace during school hours. Since Schneck v. United States in 1919, the Supreme Court has upheld that the freedom of speech may indeed be restricted in the event that speech is likely to precipitate a clear and present danger. A multitude of cases have verified and strengthened that notion, including Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School Board. In this 1968 case, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of students to don armbands in protest to the Vietnam War. The Court argued that no clear and present danger existed in this simple and peaceful expression of opinion. This precedent resonates loudly through many similar cases and received two major corollaries in the form of Bethel School District v. Fraser and Morse v. Frederick. In these two cases, the Supreme Court sided with the school administration and did not protect the students freedom of speech due to the involvement of sexual innuendos and drug references respectively. In the present situation, the actions of the cheerleaders suggest no reference to any obscene or illegal behavior or activities, nor do they appear to have the potential to incite social unrest or danger on school grounds. In Morse v. Frederick, the Court argued that in the event a school is restricting speech in a conscientious effort to maintain and apply school policy and general law, such restriction is allowed under the Courts interpretation of the First Amendment. Explicit references to drug use very clearly violate school policy and general law. It is likely not a prominent school policy that religious expression be suppressed and hidden throughout the school. This case clearly does not align with Morse v. Frederick in circumstance and thus may follow the precedent established by Tinker.

The cheerleaders of Harding High displayed a religious affiliation to Christianity, just as the Tinker siblings displayed a political affiliation in objection to the Vietnam War. The First Amendment states that there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion [or] prohibiting the free exercise thereof. These cheerleaders are simply and freely exercising their religious beliefs, while no establishment of religion is taking place or being endorsed by the public school. While the cheerleading squad is an entity of the school, the placement of a Bible verse on their apparel does not equate to any school-sponsored religious affiliation. The circumstances align relatively closely with those of the Tinker case with one prominent exception. The addition of the verse to school affiliated apparel provides the perception that the school endorses this religious expression. However, the school administration did not approve this placement and did not coordinate any additional efforts to spread religion through any other entity of the school. The First Amendment places greater weight on religious expression and protection as they are specifically mentioned in the amendment itself. This particular message is a clear expression of the Christian religion in particular. If evidence suggests that this message was offensive to several students and parents and could yield future disturbances, the ban should stand. However, no danger is evident from one solitary call from one set of parents. The application of the First Amendment should always be uniform throughout every citizens venture into a variety of environments. Adults in the workplace or at home and students in school should be guaranteed the freedoms enumerated in this amendment in all venues equally. The Supreme Court has verified this notion through the common idea that speech and expression are protected so long as no danger or imminent

illegal action result. In schools, this idea is taken to an additional level including school policy and protection. While the words of Charles Schenck in 1919 carried the threat of danger, the religious expression of cheerleaders does not. Schools are guaranteed the ability under the Courts jurisprudence to curtail speech or expression when threats to the school environment and protection arise. Harding High violated the First Amendment by regulating religious expression that carried no threats of imminent danger, obscenity or illegal activities. While the expression was displayed on members of an extracurricular organization of the school, the school itself did not endorse or further propagate a religious message. These cheerleaders are expressing their personal religious beliefs on their own volition. It is not uncommon for athletes to display various expressions of religion or views on certain social issues on their person while representing a school. The perception of offense is not sufficient grievance to restrict and regulate religious freedom. Justice Fortas eloquently defends expression by saying in his majority opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.