Brown V. Cabell 598 Summary
In this case, Brown contends that he had a firm constitutional right to stand up and support Jennings if he so chose to. As with any Constitutional right, this right must be allowed except when it begins to interfere and infringe on the ability of educators to safely and effectively carry out their duties to other students. Brown v. Cabell, 598.
Because the actions of the defendants were in response to a reasonably anticipated disturbance at Huntington High School and tensions surrounding the referenced student, the school boards suspension was affirmed.
In Donnie’s case, there were no racial tensions, nor was there the presence of the un-rest and extreme concerns that these other two schools had in regard to the learning environment. He was simply standing up for a wrong that was done to his friend and he felt should be corrected. There were no specific ethnic groups nor singled out individuals targeted.
In addressing your second question of Donnie’s rights being violated due to his writing “Zero Tolerance Sucks” on his t-shirt, A public school has an obligation to provide a safe and secure educational environment for all students. This is a very sensitive subject in our society. What one person deems to be perfectly fine is seriously offensive to another. School boards across the country are having to monitor and …show more content…
School Board of Norfolk, 801 F.Supp. 1526 (E.D. Va. 1992). Here, a middle school student, Kimberly Broussard, wore a t-shirt that read “Drugs Suck”. Her parents sued on her behalf claiming that her shirt was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States. Here, the courts ruled in favor of the school board, saying that although the shirt displayed an anti-drug message, the word “suck” was considered a vulgar word with a sexual connotation and therefore not allowed in school because it interfered with the classroom learning environment. Id. at
Because the actions of the defendants were in response to a reasonably anticipated disturbance at Huntington High School and tensions surrounding the referenced student, the school boards suspension was affirmed.
In Donnie’s case, there were no racial tensions, nor was there the presence of the un-rest and extreme concerns that these other two schools had in regard to the learning environment. He was simply standing up for a wrong that was done to his friend and he felt should be corrected. There were no specific ethnic groups nor singled out individuals targeted.
In addressing your second question of Donnie’s rights being violated due to his writing “Zero Tolerance Sucks” on his t-shirt, A public school has an obligation to provide a safe and secure educational environment for all students. This is a very sensitive subject in our society. What one person deems to be perfectly fine is seriously offensive to another. School boards across the country are having to monitor and …show more content…
School Board of Norfolk, 801 F.Supp. 1526 (E.D. Va. 1992). Here, a middle school student, Kimberly Broussard, wore a t-shirt that read “Drugs Suck”. Her parents sued on her behalf claiming that her shirt was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States. Here, the courts ruled in favor of the school board, saying that although the shirt displayed an anti-drug message, the word “suck” was considered a vulgar word with a sexual connotation and therefore not allowed in school because it interfered with the classroom learning environment. Id. at