North Stanly High School cheerleaders in North Carolina held up a “Trump 2020” sign at a football game last month. This violates a school policy that prohibits political material shown in school publications or at school events.
After a photo of the political display was posted on Facebook, the North Carolina High School Athletic Association put them on “probation” for one year, claiming the display violated their handbook. However, “probation” is not clearly defined, and the squad is still allowed to cheer. They just were warned not to raise the flag again, as there could be fines or suspensions.
Many took to social media to post in support of the cheerleaders’ 1st amendment right to free speech. One community member explained, “It is their right as young adults to support whomever they want. I understand this is a football game, but as long as they don't interrupt the game... I don't see an issue with the banner." Even Representative Richard Hudson (R - NC) tweeted in support of the girls, “As Stanly Co's Congressman, I am concerned our students are being punished for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.”
A spokesperson from the school clarified that this policy doesn’t oppose the 1st Amendment because the students represent the school. Displaying political material could be interpreted as the school endorsing that campaign.
However, right-wing publications took it further. They were outraged about the “probation,” and even spread false reports that the cheerleaders were banned from football games. Supporters of the cheerleaders planned a rally outside the football field before the September 20th game. One of the organizers was also a supporter of Proud boys, a right-wing extremist group that partakes in violent protests.
Because of the rally and fears it could become violent, the school postponed the football game until the next day. They also stated only signs with the school logo would be allowed at the game and that there would be extra police and safety measures, like bag checks and metal detectors.
Thankfully, the rally was peaceful, and the football game ended up being a “routine football game.” The only sign was the banner the team ran through.
This incident raises the debate about the extent to free speech in public schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the court ruled students do not lose their right to freedom of speech and expression at school. They found students are allowed to express their political opinions, such as by wearing armbands, as long as it’s not disruptive. This ruling would protect the cheerleaders displaying a Trump sign.
However, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) contradicts this earlier ruling. In this case, the court ruled schools don’t have to promote student speech that doesn’t conform to their values. Since North Stanly High School didn’t want to be political, this ruling states it was constitutional for them to restrict the cheerleaders’ 1st Amendment right. If this case were to go to court, the school would be able to cite Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). Looking at the history of these types of cases, the school would likely win.
Sources:
My first reaction was that the cheerleaders should be able to hold up their sign because we live in a free society. But then it seemed like the sign was so political and a football game isn’t really meant for a political debate. Emotions could flare and violence could even erupt. It turns out that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "time, place and manner restrictions" on speech do not violate First Amendment free speech rights. This makes a lot of sense. You definitely can't restrict the content of someone's speech (their opinion), but sometimes there are acceptable limits on when (time), where (place) and how (manner) the opinion is expressed. In "Cox v. Louisiana" (1962), the Court said, "The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time." Later the Court said, "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time" ("Ward v. Rock Against Racism"). By these cases the school would win since a football game is not the right place and time to be blasting political views.
ReplyDelete