Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Memo 1 Barbro
Legal Memo 1 Barbro
Memoranda
To: Meagan Tate
From: Erin Barbro
Date: October 18, 2017
RE: Ms. Susan Foster
ISSUES PRESENTED
I. Are high school students protected under the First Amendments Freedom
of Speech?
II. Can the high school only penalize Ms. Foster for her silent protest?
BRIEF ANSWER
I. Yes, high school students are protected under the Freedom of Speech
clause in the First Amendment.
II. Yes, the high school can target only one form of silent protest due to the
previous acts that disrupted classrooms.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 15, 2016, Ms. Foster and other students argued about the war on
terror in the Middle East countries, escalating to yelling and name calling. One week
later, Ms. Foster had a petition drive on school grounds during school hours. Counter-
protestors arrived and another argument ensued in the hallways. Two teachers had to
stop their classes to stop the arguing. Principal, Mary Jones, met with Ms. Foster and
required her to stop protesting the war on terror.
Ms. Fosters civics teacher, George Konstantinopoulos, assigned his students to
write a report and give an oral presentation on a current political issue. Ms. Foster did
her presentation on her view of the war on terror, and gave her speech on November
21st. This ended in the other students arguing in class, with one student even threatening
physical harm to another. Although, Ms. Foster did not participate in the arguments,
Mr. Konstantinopoulos cancelled Ms. Fosters presentation because he worried about
the students chaotic behavior. He reported this incident to the principal, informing her
that Ms. Foster did not participate in the argument, but her presentation caused the
behavior.
Ms. Jones met with Ms. Foster to warn her that she would be suspended from
school the next time she spoke about her views on the war on terror. On November 22,
2016, Ms. Jones sent a memo to all students banning any discussion of the war on
terror during school hours to keep the students from disrupting the regular school day.
Any students who would instigate or be involved, would be subject to discipline.
On December 6, 2016, Ms. Foster wore a t-shirt with the words Love not War
written on it, and handed approximately 50 others out to classmates who shared her
views. The administration was not aware of any incidents that broke out because of the
t-shirts, but Ms. Foster was suspended for 2 weeks. Ms. Foster attempted to discuss her
suspension with Ms. Jones because she did not specifically reference the war. Several
other students wore shirts which included the same words, love and war, but none of
the other students were reprimanded.
APPLICABLE STATUTES
The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. Consti. Amend. I.
ANALYSIS
II. Ms. Fosters shirts, which displayed Love not War, were singled out when it
came to disciplining students for wearing a slogan that related to the war, because many
other students wore shirts with similar statements on them. Some examples given were
Love Wins, Love>Hate, No Nukes, History not Hate, and But her emails
None of these students were disciplined, and Ms. Jones refused to acknowledge these
shirts when Ms. Foster brought them to Ms. Jones attention. Ms. Jones only included
the War on Terror in her Memo to the students regarding the ban. This shows that Ms.
Foster was targeted with the ban on the discussion of War on Terror. However, Tinker
states that a particular symbolwas singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition
of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to
avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not
constitutionally permissible. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S.
503, 511(1969). This means that if Ms. Foster would not have been disrupting the
classes, then she would be protected under the First Amendment for being singled out in
protest. However, since Ms. Foster caused the disruptions with her protest, the school is
justified in singling Ms. Foster out for disciplining only her shirts displaying Love not
War.
CONCLUSION
There are arguments for Ms. Fosters case, but Ms. Fosters First Amendment
rights were not clearly violated. She was allowed to protest initially, but due to the
disruptions it caused, she and the other students were banned from discussing the
specific topic of the War on Terror, and any U.S. Military action in the Middle East.
The court will likely not follow the precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch.
Dist., 393 U.S. 503(1969) because of the disruptions that Ms. Foster caused in school for
the other students. However, since Ms. Foster was suspended when she took part in a
silent protest, there may be a good argument against the school for violating her
freedom of expression.