We previously discussed the case of Jared Marcum, 14, who was suspended and arrested for wearing a t-shirt supporting the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association. While many of us derided the arrest of a student (and the continuation of a trend toward criminalizing our schools), most people assumed that the police or prosecutors would immediately show a modicum of sense in refusing to bring the charges of disrupting the educational process and obstructing an officer. We were wrong but the charges were ultimately dismissed. Now, the family in West Virginia is suing.
The case began when a a teacher spotted the t-shirt with the NRA logo and an image of a hunting rifle with the phrase, “Protect your right.” Marcum was stopped by school secretary Anita Gore, who instructed him to turn the shirt inside our or face suspension from school. Another teacher David Burroway agreed the shirt violated the dress code and pulled him to the principal’s office by his arm, according to the lawsuit. He was told to turn the t-shirt inside out and protested. An argument ensued. Now at this point, I believe that the teacher is wrong to deny this small act of free speech, but I also believe that Marcum is wrong to get into an argument with a teacher. He should have complied or, better yet, asked to see the principal. However, at most this is a simple question for a teacher-parent meeting and not a matter for the police. It seems that the teacher allowed this to escalate in the lunchroom and Marcum should have been more respectful.
The family is now seeking $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages for alleged violations of Marcum’s First and 14th Amendment rights. The school’s own dress code will be the foundation for the lawsuit because the tee-shirt will be defended as not having violent of threatening image. It could offer an interesting point of analysis for free speech. Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected individual right. Would a tee-shirt proclaiming the need to protect free speech be viewed as violent if it showed the minutemen or an image from the French Revolution?
It will not surprise many on this blog that I tend to run home to free speech in such conflicts. This seems too much of content-based regulation for my tastes. We have previously followed the suspensions and discipline of students under zero tolerance policies that are used by teachers to justify zero judgment or responsibility. I have long criticized zero tolerance policies that have led to suspensions and arrests of children (here, here and here and here and here). Here is a prior column on the subject (and here).Children have been suspended or expelled for drawing stick figures or wearing military hats or bringing Legos shaped like guns or even having Danish in the shape of a gun. Despite the public outcry over the completely irrational and abusive application of zero tolerance rules, administrators and teachers continue to apply them blindly. If you do not have to exercise judgment, you can never been blamed for any failure. Conversely, even when the public outcry results in a reversals, teachers and administrators never seem punished with the same vigor for showing no judgment or logic in punishing a child.
What do you think?
But, your right under the First Amendment. You’re welcome, world. We value free speech here in the USA more than anywhere in the world. But, freedoms must CONSTANTLY be fought for from pernicious attacks by people who think there is a right to not be offended. You are in the wrong place, except on US campuses. No wait, if you’re fat, white, male, conservative you can be offended there as well.
Isaac, Your use of the offensive word “teabagger” is a BIG tell.
Nick
Your use of the word ‘our’ is most appropriate. It is our Constitution. It is alive. It can be interpreted from different perspectives, the 2nd amendment is a prime example of ambiguity taken in different directions. Wearing the t-shirt the kid wore is no different than another t-shirt with the words, ‘Well regulated militia’ written on it with a design of a T-bagger driving a tank under neath.
Dress codes may be legal in a private institution.
Not in a public school.
Pre-restraint of speech has been found to be the most obnoxious imposition by authorities by the Supreme Court.
Gary T – however, to my great surprise, the SC decided for the school in deciding that the students could NOT wear US flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo.
Joe:
Since when do you have to protect inoffensive speech?
“Another teacher David Burroway agreed the shirt violated the dress code and pulled him to the principal’s office by his arm, according to the lawsuit. He was told to turn the t-shirt inside out and protested. An argument ensued. Now at this point, I believe that the teacher is wrong to deny this small act of free speech, but I also believe that Marcum is wrong to get into an argument with a teacher. He should have complied or, better yet, asked to see the principal.”
He was already at the principle’s office when the argument happened. Good for this kid. Speak truth to power. The teacher was wrong, Marcum was totally in the right and had every right to argue. He should not have complied, that’s the problem we have today, too many complacent dociles.
We need more people to fight like this. I hope the boy continues to grow from these hardships. He and his family will be a great asset for the future of freedom.
You know some of the buffoons who are part of the education industry.
Isaac, I now have some hope for you vis a vis our Constitution. I surmise your correct assessment here has something to do w/ your being part of our dysfunctional education industry.
Until school staff, including teachers and principals, are fired for these offenses, nothing will change.
I had thought that the Second Amendment was pretty uncontroversial in West Virginia, but maybe public schools tend to outposts of Stalinism everywhere.
fnn – teacher schools are outposts for liberalism, hence the anti-NRA stance. I was the only conservative at the last school I taught at.
The kid is a kid and the element of shaking things up has to be factored in. However, a kid that is provocative in a disturbing way will develop a history of it and eventually get into the trouble it seeks. If the kid deserves punishment for provoking he will get it eventually.
The issue of an pro NRA t-shirt falls into an accepted social discussion with people arguing in both directions from the center to the extremes. It seems that a t-shirt does not fall into the area of extremes. From an objective perspective the kid was merely wearing his team’s logo. If he is not allowed to wear his pro gun t-shirt in fear of surfacing opposing opinions then it follows that any logo representing an opinion with an opposite argument should not be allowed: sports team logos, save the whales logos, save the turtles logos, don’t litter logos, etc.
The right of free speech will sometimes collide with sensitive social issues; that is inevitable. But for the school to have a policy directed against the NRA or for the school to be so mindlessly intolerant only supports any teenager’s disdain for the sometimes stupidity of adults. This is a school, education, preparation for the world out there. The school fails here.
Regarding the $$$ in the lawsuit, the kid should get a little and the rest should go to setting up a program for kids, and teachers, to study the Constitution as it has evolved over time and how it pertains to this moment in US history. An intelligent teacher would have transitioned the issue into an open discussion in class.
Those in authority all too often escalate encounters rather than deescalate. Why? We see this sort of action with far too many police, and this case with school officials. Take an extra minute of 5 and talk things through. No need to threaten criminal action.
Thank you JT for your stance.
Pogo, I have a pretty good cross section of public/private. I went to public K-8. The public high school I would attend was not good. My blue collar parents had a goal of all 4 of their kids graduating from college. So, they worked extra jobs to put their 4 kids through college. We kids helped pay for our own college w/ loans and work, but they paid for high school. I also went to Catholic college. As an adult, I went to a public college for education and postgrad courses. The difference between public/private is stark.
This 0 tolerance is simply another indication of our corrupted and dysfunctional education industry. If you don’t think this is tied in w/ the Boston U. prof, or the assaultive UC-Santa Barbara prof, think again. These are the elitists teaching these “educators” and “administrators.”
Sending your kids to public school is child abuse.
The school’s dress code leaves too much room for interpretation by individual teachers and administrators. The image of a rifle might represent violence to someone from Los Angeles, but sportsmanship to someone from Wyoming. When my kids were in school, the dress code was a plain white polo shirt. No writing, no images, not even a visible brand name or logo. I think the lawsuit should be dismissed. Schools generally are afforded a reasonable amount of latitude to maintain order. This kid wasn’t injured and his parents shouldn’t be allowed to cash in because their teen was pushing the limits of the school dress policy and being disrespectful and uncooperative.
There are two things going on here. 1) The student wore a t-shirt knowing it would be provacative and looking for the teacher or staff member who would take the bait 2) both a staff member and a teacher took the bait. The teacher is completely out of line. I am tired of these supposed dress codes that violate the Constitution.
Havin this student arrested and forcing the family to go through the criminal justice process to get this charge dismissed warrants a lawsuit. Teachers and administrators need to begin learning how to exercise judgment. Perhaps as if I ant financial penalty will move the board of education to do something about this kind of over reaction.
I think I agree with your post. Protecting offensive free speech is just as important as protecting any other form of free speech. One can’t help but wonder where the free speech obstructionists’ path will lead us. Thanks JT for the thoughtful post.
Reblogged this on Eatgrueldog.