On the National Day of Silence, Chicago area high schooler Heidi Zamecnik just wanted to tell other students they should, “Be Happy, Not Gay,” so she wore a t-shirt saying as much. (“My Day of Silence” appeared on the front; the back sported the other phrase.) This was back in 2006 — and Neuqua Valley High School administrators forced her to take a marker and black out the “Not Gay” part. So she sued. And just won on appeal.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Heidi’s favor, saying the First Amendment gives her the right to express anti-gay sentiments in school. (She’s since graduated.) ”
A school that permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality,” the court’s ruling reads. “People in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or their way of life.” Which means it’s time to start printing up all those “Be Happy, Not Latino” shirts, because hey, that’s cool!
As you might’ve expected, it was the Alliance Defence Fund who headed up Heidi’s lawsuit. It also handled the joint complaint from Alex Nuxoll, another Neuqua Valley High student at the time, who wanted to wear the same tee but was denied twice by a court when he sought an injunction to halt the school’s policy. The 7th Circuit ruling upholds a 2010 decision that ruled in Heidi and Alex’s favor.
Let’s take this baby to the Supreme Court!
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Was the court right to uphold Heidi’s right to wear the shirt? Yes — if it’s true that her tee did not cause any interruptions in the regular activity of school. Which I find hard to believe, since this girl is walking around saying an entire class of people, uh, shouldn’t be that way. Should gay kids just sit behind her in class and … be quiet?
If anti-women, anti-black, anti-mental disability (and anti-Heidi) shirts can also be worn, then fine, let the kids express themselves. Because I just bought BigotedSchoolFashoins.com, and I want to make a killing.
What?
Wait, so your standard would be: “If students create a commotion in response to some expression, that expression should be banned?” If that’s your standard, then those who object to pro-gay expressions (such as the day of silence) permitted in the school can get those expressions banned as well — simply by making a ruckus.
Here’s the simple fact: public entities, such as public schools, cannot undertake viewpoint discrimination. If it allows pro-gay expression, it must allow anti-gay expression. Either it allows this student to wear this shirt, or it forbids any pro- or anti-gay student expression. If it allows only certain kinds of anti-gay expression, it must apply the same rules to pro-gay expression. Them’s the rules. Anything else would be censorship of viewpoint under the very clearest and most core meaning of that term.
prohomo
Why not anti-straight messages? With all the problems and suffering caused almost exclusively by straight men and some women, you’d think the world would pick at the conflicted, problem causing sexuality that is heterosexuality. Blind fools.
Francis
Schools aren’t like shopping malls. That’s what people need to understand when saying “public places=free speech.” Schools have the right to regulate speech and behavior if they see fit, in this case to not create a hostile environment for the LGBT children in the school. This ruling is a disgrace. The shirt SPECIFICALLY TARGETED a group of people in a hateful manner, done INTENTIONALLY on a day meant to celebrate equality. If the shirt said “n*ggers” or “Christianity is of the devil” or “______ is a horrible teacher,” best believe that the kid would be taken out of class and reprimanded, rightfully, for disrupting class and creating an environment not conducive towards students learning and teachers teaching. This ruling essentially states it’s perfectly alright to target a group for blatant displays of hate and harassment in a place where they should be protected from such things. This is why there needs to be a federal anti-bullying law.
Damon
I’m fine with her being allowed to wear the shirt as long as they allow other kids to wear “Be happy, punch Heidi Zamecnik in the face” shirts.
Charlie
@Damon: I rather agree. I would be fine with a “Be Happy because God loves you” shirt because it doesn’t make any student feel unsafe. “Proud to be straight” would be just fine with me as well – I have often heard straight people ask “Why don’t we have straight pride?” and I say you should! Live it, be it, love it.
But yes. A shirt with a picture of Heidi on it that read “Don’t be that girl” would be groovy.
orpheus_lost
I wonder how this “freedom of speech” loving court would have ruled on a shirt labeled, “Christianity… Celebrating Ignorance for over 2000 Years.”
Of course we all know their response would have been to allow the shirt to be banned because it is disruptive to the classroom which goes to show this ruling is unethical and the judges who ruled in its favor should be removed from the bench.
The First Amendment, like all the others, is not an absolute right. As has been ruled previously, First Amendment rights are limited when speech advocates violence, could lead to bodily harm, libels or slanders an individual or group, and when one is a student in a public school.
Therefore, if you tell someone you are going to kill them, yell “fire” in a theater, spread a story that an actor likes to shove gerbils up his rectum, or run afoul of your high school’s dress code or code of acceptable behavior, you are not able to claim a Constitutional right.
I agree with conservatives who scream about judicial activism, the problem is they only seem to be bothered by it when it runs counter to their whims. I find it interesting that generally the same people who supported the ruling that stated an Alaskan student did not have the right to hold up a pro-marijuana banner OUTSIDE of the classroom now support another student’s First Amendment rights INSIDE the classroom when her message supports intolerance.
John K.
@orpheus_lost: I really want to test this anti-religion t-shirt in the 7th circuit now. A point needs to be made that there comes a point where free speech gets out of hand, and direct insults against fellow students crosses the line.
orpheus_lost
@John K.: LOL! I’ll look forward to reading the story.
Constitutionally, insults are protected free speech and I agree with that. If I call you an idiot, that’s my Constitutional right, just as it’s yours to respond by calling me a goat f*cker. However, in the classroom either of these insults would lead to punishment and no court in the nation would deny the school the right to penalize such language because schools have a primary mission to create a healthy social atmosphere that is conducive to learning. This has been well established in several past rulings.
That is why this ruling against the school’s right to ban this shirt is so flagrantly wrong. The 7th circuit has removed the tools necessary for public schools to properly carry out a major function of its purpose. According to their ruling a school now has no power to demand the removal of a shirt that states, “Be Tanned… Not Black” or “White is Right.. Brown is Blah” as both are now forms of protected free speech in schools under the 7th circuit’s jurisdiction.
This ruling can only be described as judicial malfeasance and the justices who ruled in the majority should be removed from the bench and disbarred.
jack
@Charlie
There are lots of “straight pride” types of celebrations and symbolism. They merely don’t advertise them as “pride.”Proms and homecomings have the king and queen, aka symbolic husband and wife/adam and eve and the celebrations are like practice straight marriages: formal symbolic crownings of king/queen(orthodox weddings use crowns);flowers/limos/formal wear; partying and dancing…. Also open up a newspaper and you see most of the time—straight couples’ pics and announcements of engagements, nuptials and celebrations. Most of them are straight couples, some papers have lesbian/gay couples now but some never ban gay/lesbian couples.
RomanHans
> If it allows pro-gay expression, it must allow anti-gay expression.
Why have you confused public schools with a place where free expression is allowed?
Really, I’m baffled by you folks. “IT’S THE FIRST AMENDMENT!” you scream. Yeah, dudes, but it’s also A SCHOOL. You don’t have the “right” to swear. You don’t have the “right” to call your teacher an asshole. Just because a teacher tells you it’s Black History Month doesn’t mean you can show up the next day in a pointy white hood as an opposing viewpoint.
The idea is to be tolerant of all students, and provide a non-threatening environment for a good education. This means — yes, total double standard! — that you can let students proclaim that some groups of people are very cool but not allow them to say some groups of people stink.
orpheus_lost
@What?: Don’t you just love false equivalencies? LOL!
Based on your comments since there would be no legal reason to stop a student from wearing a shirt that states, “I like my teachers” there would be no ability to stop another from wearing one that says, “I hate my teachers.” After all, it’s just an “anti” message to counteract the “pro” viewpoint.
I can’t wait to see all the shirts condemning African-Americans, women, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and any other group out there all based on your simplistic idea that ALL views, no matter how hateful, must be protected forms of expression in our schools.
Oooh! How about shirts expressing how much a popular group of students hates the class nerd? Won’t that be fun? It’s all good in your book.
tallskin2
Would they allow this on a t-shirt? If not, why not?
(And anyway, why aren’t these kids wearing school uniforms??)
[img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeWBGoa7U1sweO08sHiDK1QJ2nHWSpl22JKgyYBZZo8y08IhSP6A&t=1[/img]
EdWoody
You wouldn’t have all these arguments if schools just enforced a school uniform. Seems like an obvious answer to me.
DavyJones
@EdWoody: Because uniforms entirely stifle students’ abilities to express their individuality. True, the ‘purpose’ of school might be to educate; but most children spend a large portion of their time in school, so for them it truly is the place for them to learn to express themselves, and grow in acceptance of all positions.
In the case of this particular shirt, I would imagine that if the case does go to the Supreme Court, the 7th Circuit’s ruling will be upheld. The First Amendment really does apply to schools (actually even more-so than it does in a private shopping mall), the courts have regularly upheld this. [see foot-note]. Yes, the shirt is bigoted; yes it will make some people uncomfortable; however the Supreme court has specifically said, “[School administrators] must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”
She has a right to wear her shirt, because while we might not like the message, but students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
Ogre Magi
Heidi Zamecnik is a dumb christian cunt!
anon
You might want to spell fashions correctly.
Eric
I’m okay with her wearing the shirt. I would just make a point to say, “Fuck you, Heidi Zamecnik!” everytime I passed her in the hall. You know, free speech, amiright?
Shannon1981
If she can wear that shirt, then shirts with hateful messages against race, religion, all sorts of taboo things should be allowed as well. End of story. If they aren’t, then they are wrong for this ruling. If they are, then its fine.
Qwerty
OK, so I’m going to go to school tomorrow, and wear my Robyn “Don’t Fucking Tell Me What to Do” shirt. Because this message is a hell of a lot more offensive. And if that girl went to my school, I would fight to get her expelled. That isn’t a belief system. That’s ignorance. That’s lack of thought. That’s lack of recognition. It’s sheer stupidity, and prejudice. I cannot believe this girl got away with that at all, and maybe I should wear a “Be Happy, Not Straight” shirt to school. Because, apparently, when it comes to the gay rights agenda, this country will do anything to undermine it… and if that’s the girl in the photo, someone should tell her, if we’re being honest, that never before have I seen a back shot make a girl look so singularly unattractive. Maybe a shirt to tell her to grow her hair out to cover her massive hump, and chunky arm fat that’s spilling out across her disgusting form? Or maybe one that says she is hereby banned from layering shirts, as she looks like she is mentally ill, and through that together in a moment of passion. Urgh, this makes me so damn angry!
IonMusic
In our public school…you could not wear a hat, a shirt with rappers (even their pictures), trench coats, or color your hair in very bright colors. That’s absolutely true of our school district and MANY school districts because they don’t want to disrupt the learning environment. THIS is about as disruptive, and distracting to the learning environment as anything I’ve ever heard. This girl was trying to divert the attention of scholastics to divsive issues that aim to diminish part of the student body. That is NOT what the school setting is for and this panel of judges is nothing short of “activist judges” (see Conservatives, it works both ways!) trying to practice from the bench their own slanted anti gay agenda. I’ve seen schools suspend kicks for farrrrrrrr less offensive outward appearance that did not directly affect anyone in the student body…this directly calls out the essence of some of those students who attend that school and beyond being uncalled for it is DISTRACTING. Every school is enabled to maintain order in their learning environment and I applaud the school for attempting to do just that here.
Bill
The gay children at that school should wear ‘Be Smart, Not Christian’ t-shirts.
You know. Free speech and all…
Andrea
If students at the same school were permitted to wear pro-gay rights T-shirts or have gay-straight student alliances, etc., then YES, the girl has every right to wear that T-shirt. The proper response from the gay kids would be to create their own T-shirts saying “Be Gay. Straight is Boring” or something similar. The correct response to speech you don’t agree with is more speech. You do NOT get to shut people up because you don’t like what they said.
Francis
Andrea, this is a school. This isn’t debate club. Schools are safe places, for learning, for teaching, and going out of your way to disrupt the order of this gets you punished, that’s how schools have always operated. This girl went out of her way to cause a situation and drama, and draw attention to herself, ultimately, creating disruption. So, this lawsuit should never have been accepted as legitimate.
DavyJones
@Francis: Urm…? The courts have regularly upheld that school *are* places for social and political expression, regardless of if it causes ‘discomfort and unpleasantness’.
And @IonMusic: Just because your school district got away with it doesn’t mean it’s constitutional (or that it should be)
lar51
i can’t get past the part that comparing a day of silence
to a t-shirt is the same
why wasn’t she told she could have a day of silence against gays
as previously stated would they have equal rights to wear anti religous statements against organized religous zealots that proclaim to know what gods rules are based on a book that
teaches hate instead of love that jesus taught
(be gay not catholic) (insert protestant, born again)
he would of ate with us
as the song says “god made me this way”
Francis
This isn’t about not liking what someone has to say, this is about someone doing something intentionally, targeting a group of people, again intentionally, on a particular day known to promote equality, again intentionally, to get attention and cause a scene. She went to the school with that shirt on to be a disturbance and disrupt order and have all eyes on her, and that is where the judges failed.
Danny
@DavyJones: The courts have ALSO in fact in many cases ruled that there ARE limits to free speech in schools where the learning process is disrupted. In this case, clearly the learning process is ONLY disrupted for gay students, and since gay people are still considered second class citizens in this nation, the shirt is apparently OK with this court.
Can’t people understand that it’s NOT the same thing to make an expression in FAVOR of something (which is not hurting anyone) as it is to make an expression AGAINST something (which IS hurting people – gay people who don’t have a choice in the matter, and are at the most critical age in their lives where they are trying to come to terms with the fact that they are different than their peers).
The courts got this one wrong.
James
I was a junior at this high school when all of this started. The majority of students and faculty voiced their opinion AGAINST the student and her shirt. The administrators are also VERY strict about dress code and it does not surprise me that they wouldn’t allow her to wear the shirt as it was. I remember instances when the faculty would require students to change their clothes for wearing things that were much less offensive or controversial. The schools have the right to censor what they believe is disruptive to other students and their right to an education. This would be a completely different story had my school decided to censor a positive message; it is completely acceptable to forbid negative messages directed towards others, especially students.
Also, student Alex Nuxoll, although an asshole and the son of some wealthy conservatives with too much time, is HOT AS FUCK. Blue-eyed, tan, and hot in that closet-case bigot kinda way…
Brian Miller
Good grief, why do so many self-described “liberals” have such an inability to understand the classically liberal concept of “free speech and expression?”
Yes, let kids wear pro-gay and anti-gay shirts. It’s in the First Amendment for a reason.
IonMusic
@DavyJones: Your homophobia has failed you to recollect the many incidents where courts upheld a schools ability and power to constitute what is right and wrong as far as outward appearance in a school setting. I can’t wear a Nazi symbol to a school…disruptive to learning environment and enables faculty to suspend me. Same with this case. It is absolutely no different and any attempt tp spin it is your anti gay agenda creeping out. Work out your issues with being gay before you argue falsehood in a gay blog.
caringstd66
I guess having herpes/HIV/HPV is not the end of the world. I’m living with HIV positive for 2 years. I was upset at the beginning.
A std support site Positivemate.com helps me find useful, up-to-date information for cure..meet lots of warm-hearted people..No rejection or discrimination. We’re not alone.
George Takei
Hello, I’m George Takei. You are…a douchebag.
That’s right! A douchebag.
You are always going to be a total douchebag. I can only suspect that you have some…shall I say…’issues’ to work out?
Sage Cat
I don’t like the idea of politicizing schools at all(outside of a debate club or a forum). Hateful messages, anti-anything do not have a place in public schools. I don’t like the thought of taxpayer money being used to support hatred of other people. How does the wearing of hateful messages promote learning? It doesn’t! A public school is not an area of “free-speech” it is a learning facility.
At my old high school pro-lifers were allowed to walk around with signs depicting aborted fetuses. There are many activists and individuals who commit acts that disgust me, but sometimes there’s nothing you can do.
prohomo
@tallskin2: Simple. Because this t-shirt tells the truth!!
Circe
@What?:
Well, its true, we don’t have 100% proof yet that being homosexual is predetermined by our DNA or hormonal changes that occur within the womb… But its looking more and more like the latter is the case. And since when do schools condone students openly telling others that they can’t be who they are?
Schools need to be INCLUSIVE, not exclusive. She could have worn a shirt pronouncing her OWN gender orientation, such as “I’m straight” or something like that, but not one that tells others to change themselves. ESPECIALLY not on a day of somber commemoration of all the violence that has been perpetrated against them.
So, I’d say yeah- her shirt is hurtful, stupid AND insensitive. Given that high schools have a decidedly lower bar for “free speech” she should probably just suck it up and try it again in college.