Mexifornia

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, I've never found out to what degree the claim of gang attire was reasonable. Even if it was though, there's a conflict between the student's right to religious expression and the school concern for safety. I would bet if this gets to court the student would win, since as you say it's up to the school to resolve their gang problems, and I don't think the courts would hold that there's a compelling government interest, which is the standard here.

[Oblarg]

Yes, I've never found out to what degree the claim of gang attire was reasonable. Even if it was though, there's a conflict between the student's right to religious expression and the school concern for safety. I would bet if this gets to court the student would win, since as you say it's up to the school to resolve their gang problems, and I don't think the courts would hold that there's a compelling government interest, which is the standard here.

 

Can't really disagree with you there. That doesn't make it a particularly smart thing to do, however, unless you're looking to be a sacrificial lamb to prove a point.

 

Personally, I doubt the danger is that great, and the school administration is probably just being rather stupid. School administrations, unfortunately, tend to do that a lot.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Oblarg

[~Di]

It's okay with me if schools want to ban religious items or silly bracelets in class. Schools have a right to enforce a dress code. Only when they have no such ban, but unilaterally decide that students of one race will be sent home for wearing something that students of another race are allowed to wear do I have a problem.

[Oblarg]

It's okay with me if schools want to ban religious items or silly bracelets in class. Schools have a right to enforce a dress code. Only when they have no such ban, but unilaterally decide that students of one race will be sent home for wearing something that students of another race are allowed to wear do I have a problem.

 

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Oblarg

[Wrath of Dagon]

The constitution does. You have a right to religious expression and free speech even in school.

[Enoch]

The constitution does. You have a right to religious expression and free speech even in school.

You have a right. But not much of one.

[Hurlshort]

The constitution does. You have a right to religious expression and free speech even in school.

 

We have already established that this is not true. You do not have the right to cause any disruption on school grounds.

[Volourn]

The post you replied never suggested one did.

[Oblarg]

The post you replied never suggested one did.

 

If a school deems religious garb disruptive, and issues a school-wide ban on it (not just on, say, Christian icons, mind you), there's nothing anyone can do about. It might not be a smart policy, but it's a legal one.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Oblarg

[Wrath of Dagon]

The constitution does. You have a right to religious expression and free speech even in school.

You have a right. But not much of one.

Promoting illegal activity in a school sponsored event is not the same thing as wearing a cross.

 

If a school deems religious garb disruptive, and issues a school-wide ban on it (not just on, say, Christian icons, mind you), there's nothing anyone can do about. It might not be a smart policy, but it's a legal one.

No it's not, you have no understanding of the law. You can require a dress code, but you can not prohibit display of religious items. At best they could limit the size or something like that.

[Oblarg]

The constitution does. You have a right to religious expression and free speech even in school.

You have a right. But not much of one.

Promoting illegal activity in a school sponsored event is not the same thing as wearing a cross.

 

If a school deems religious garb disruptive, and issues a school-wide ban on it (not just on, say, Christian icons, mind you), there's nothing anyone can do about. It might not be a smart policy, but it's a legal one.

No it's not, you have no understanding of the law. You can require a dress code, but you can not prohibit display of religious items. At best they could limit the size or something like that.

 

If your dress code prohibits the display of religious items, it's still a dress code. There's no exception that says "you can only prohibit these certain things in your dress code."

[Volourn]

Law > School

 

This is a fact.

 

This is why schools get slammed all the time, sued, and embarassed. They have a tendency to think they're above the law though they are not.

[Oblarg]

Law > School

 

This is a fact.

 

This is why schools get slammed all the time, sued, and embarassed. They have a tendency to think they're above the law though they are not.

 

I guarantee that if a school deemed religious icons disruptive and banned them in the dress code, so long as the ban was universal, it would hold up in court.

[Volourn]

You can't guarantee anything of the sort unless you are judge on the case. Don't be so ignorantly arrogant to assume your opinion is agreed upon byu everyone 'cause as evidenced by this thread it ain't.

[Oblarg]

You can't guarantee anything of the sort unless you are judge on the case. Don't be so ignorantly arrogant to assume your opinion is agreed upon byu everyone 'cause as evidenced by this thread it ain't.

 

The fact that schools still have dress codes is proof enough. You'd think it'd already have been overturned if it weren't legally sound.

[Volourn]

Must explain all the times schools are embarassed in court or before even reaching court ebcause they think they're above the law even though they are not.

 

They are not above the law no matter how much you wish they were.

[Hurlshort]

Thanks Judge Dredd.

[Volourn]

Nah. I don't go around proclaiming myself judge, jury, and executioner in a dismal future.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The fact that schools still have dress codes is proof enough. You'd think it'd already have been overturned if it weren't legally sound.

Find one in US which bans religious items. The school woud have to prove that such items are disruptive, and that that's the wearer's fault, and not the school's. As I said before, the standard is compelling government interest, and I don't see any circumstances under which they could prove that.

[Enoch]

The constitution does. You have a right to religious expression and free speech even in school.

You have a right. But not much of one.

Promoting illegal activity in a school sponsored event is not the same thing as wearing a cross.

 

If a school deems religious garb disruptive, and issues a school-wide ban on it (not just on, say, Christian icons, mind you), there's nothing anyone can do about. It might not be a smart policy, but it's a legal one.

No it's not, you have no understanding of the law. You can require a dress code, but you can not prohibit display of religious items. At best they could limit the size or something like that.

 

Law > School

 

This is a fact.

 

This is why schools get slammed all the time, sued, and embarassed. They have a tendency to think they're above the law though they are not.

 

I guarantee that if a school deemed religious icons disruptive and banned them in the dress code, so long as the ban was universal, it would hold up in court.

It hasn't been thoroughly tested, but WoD and Volo are probably right on this point. For example, here is a case from a federal court in Texas where a school got slapped down for banning rosaries after their police liason informed them that a local gang was using them as a sign.

 

There isn't a bright line, though. If the school has a very good reason and doesn't have a less-restrictive means of achieving the same goal, a court might see it their way. But with Supreme Court precedent on the books that states can't even compel kids to go to school at all if their religion forbids it, that's a tough hill to climb.

[Thorton_AP]

Kirpans were banned by New York and Ohio, but it was deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

 

Though I believe Kirpans have become areas of contention in places where security is higher.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let them carry an actual dagger to school. Some kind of facsimile might be allowed, if it wasn't dangerous.

[Thorton_AP]

New York (according to Wikipedia) had to come to a compromise, but the Law basically said that schools cannot restrict the Kirpans, because they are a religious symbol.