Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Joseph Wolf Scharps Legal Essay Competition
Joseph Wolf Scharps Legal Essay Competition
Joseph Wolf
The First Amendment is a cornerstone of our Constitution; it protects the right to speak
freely in addition to forming the foundation of religious rights. Saratoga State University is subject
to the provisions of the First Amendment, and they apply to the questions before us. The cases of
Tom and Jerry occupy a constitutional realm of first impression; whether First Amendment rights
For the reasons set forth in the following Memorandum, it is respectfully submitted that
Tom and Jerry, students at Saratoga State University, should retain their scholarships, and the
Uniform Policy be amended, pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Saratoga State Universitys football team is governed by a Uniform Policy which states,
in part, that student athletes are absolutely prohibited from adding or altering items. This bylaw
prevents students from changing the uniform which consists of a yellow jersey, black knee- length
The majority of this Uniform Policy is constitutional. The plain colored clothes that are
mandated do not run afoul with any court decision. Frudden v. Pilling 742 F.3d 1199 remarked
had the uniforms consisted of plain colored tops and bottoms, [the school] would have steered
clear of any First Amendment concerns (amended). This is because plain colored tops and
bottoms involve no written or verbal expression of any kind and as a result the plaintiffs school
did not force him to communicate any message whatsoever Frudden v. Pilling. In the case at bar,
the current Uniform Policy requires the wearing of a village seal on the back of the helmet. This
requirement clearly distinguishes the Uniform Policy from the constraints of Frudden, and whether
or not this seal can be removed is the central issue in Toms case.
Tom is a football player at Saratoga State University. While being on the team is a
substantial part of Toms life, so are his political beliefs. Tom supports Suburban Cat Rights, and
as such, strongly opposes The Village of Gatos ordinance allowing the euthanization of roaming
cats in village suburbs. Tom does not want to show support for the village, and as a result he wishes
to remove the village seal from his helmet. The head coach of the football team, Coach C, has
stated that if Tom removes the symbol he will not be able to play, and will eventually lose his
scholarship.
It is respectfully submitted that the First Amendment protects Tom and his desire to remove
the village seal from his helmet. As the Supreme Court held in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District 393 U.S. 503 a students rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the
classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field he may express his opinions,
even on controversial subjects (emphasis added). As Tom is on the playing field while
participating in the sport of football, he is ipso facto protected under the shield of the First
Amendment.
While Tom does not have a choice in wearing the plain colored top and bottom that are
mandated by the Uniform Policy, he does have a choice in the message that his attire conveys. In
fact, individuals regularly use their clothing to express ideas of opinions Canady v. Bossier
Parish School Board 240 F.3d 437. A village seal on the back of a helmet fundamentally forces
case of Tom, requires him to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to the ideological
point of view he finds unacceptable Frudden v. Pilling (citing Wooley v. Maynard 430 U.S. 705).
This requirement is subject to the mandates of the First Amendment, which protects both the right
to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all Frudden v. Pilling (citing Wooley v.
Maynard 430 U.S. 705). Tinker v. Des Moines, Frudden v. Pilling, and Canady v. Bossier provide
Tom with First Amendment protection in his decision to not wear the village seal.
In order to suppress speech such as the removal of a symbol, an institution must pass what
has become to be known as the Tinker Standard. The test states someone may express their opinion
if he does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate
discipline in the operation of the school, and without colliding with the rights of others Tinker v.
Des Moines. Toms action of removing the village seal off of his helmet, a symbol that serves no
protective purpose nor is required by the rules of football, does not substantially interfer[e] with
the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school Tinker v. Des Moines.
Nor does it collid[e] with the rights of others Tinker v. Des Moines, in any real sense of the
phrase.
The Tinker test is designed to prevent the very thing that is stopping Tom from removing
Tinker v. Des Moines. Coach C wishes to curtail Toms speech due to a fear that he is showing
incredible disrespect for the team. Neither this reason for suppression, nor Toms action of
removing the seal, merit compelling weight to satisfy a Tinker Standard test. As Chief Justice
Burger stated, Ordinarily political debate and division, however vagarious and even partisan, are
normal and healthy manifestations of our democratic system of government Lemon v. Kurtzman
Revoking Toms scholarship contradicts Tinker v. Des Moines and Frudden v. Pilling.
Thus, a lawsuit would likely result, and the University would face maximum exposure against a
plaintiff who has suffered the loss of his First Amendment rights. The damage caused by the loss
of First Amendment rights, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes
irreparable injury Newsome v. Albemarle County School Board 354 F.3d 249 (citing Elrod v.
In closing, while a school dress code need not be as detailed as a criminal code Newsome
v. Albemarle County School Board, Saratoga is a state university and is subject to the First
Amendment, which protects both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking
at all Frudden v. Pilling (citing Wooley v. Maynard 430 U.S. 705). In order to deny Toms wish
of removing the symbol a Tinker Standard test would have to be passed. With the current facts of
the case, there is no chance the University would meet the scrutiny of the Tinker Standards
watchful eye. The Uniform Policy should be amended to allow students such as Tom the ability to
remove the village seal from their helmet, pursuant to the First Amendment of the Constitution of
Before every game Coach C requires players to kneel during a pregame prayer. The act of
kneeling is not one of choice, rather, Coach C punishes players who refuse to kneel by decreasing
their playing time. This requirement effects Jerry who is not only a football player, but also a
devout follower of a religious group that participates in the worship of animals. Accordingly, Jerry
is uncomfortable with kneeling for the pregame prayer. He expressed these discomforts to Coach
particular facts presented Chaudhuri v. State of Tennessee 130 F.3d 232, it is definitive that the
requirement to kneel is coercive, and as a result, is prima facie unconstitutional. The First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States asserts Congress shall make no law
establishment clause Chaudhuri v. State of Tennessee (amended), which prohibits a school from
sponsoring any type of prayer, even a nondenominational one, since a state may not pass laws
which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over the other Mellen v. Bunting
327 F.3d 355. Coach C is a State university football coach, and therefore he is acting on behalf of
the State. Coach Cs pregame prayer violates the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
While this discussion could end there, it goes one step further. Coach C is coercing students
into participating in state-led prayer. Jerry is able to attend Saratoga State University because he
has a scholarship. Jerry has a choice to make; either he kneel and surrender his religion, or he
defies and loses his ability to go to college. Coach C will perhaps make the argument that Jerry is
not actually being coerced, and he can refuse to kneel. However, law reaches past formalism, and
to say that a student has a real choice [to not kneel when their scholarship is on the line] is
This flagrant form of coercion has been outright banned. Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577
delineated the coercion test (Mellen v. Bunting) under which the Constitution guarantees that
government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion... Further, Justice
Kennedy decisively closed Lee v. Weisman by stating, no holding suggests that a school can
persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise. That is being done here, and it
is forbidden by the establishment clause. The Supreme Court is steadfast in its decision; coercing
In closing, there is no question that Coach Cs coercive practices cause grave constitutional
concern. If the President of Saratoga State University affirms Coach Cs prayer, that choice will
be attributable to the state, and from a constitutional perspective it is as if a state statute decreed
that the prayers must occur Lee v. Weisman. This decision would be the highest and most
egregious form of constitutional breeches. It would blatantly usurp Jerrys First Amendment rights,
causing him to have an irreparable injury (Newsome v. Albemarle County School Board), in
addition to being unable to attend college. Thus, Jerrys scholarship should not be revoked under
...
For the reasons set forth within, it is respectfully submitted that Tom and Jerry, students at
Saratoga State University, retain their scholarships, and the Uniform Policy be immediately
amended, to comply with the mandates of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States.
Sincerely,