Racial Equity & Student Expression in Schools

In 1954, the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education outlawed segregation at public schools. Three years later, nine Black students, known as the “Little Rock Nine'', were the first Black students to enroll at Little Rock's Central High School. Violent mobs amassed in an attempt to prevent the Little Rock Nine from attending the school. The National Guard was deployed to ensure that the students could safely enter the building. Once inside, these students courageously endured brutal and unrelenting harassment simply for pursuing their right to an equal education and for paving the way for future Black students to do the same.

In 1960, four Black students sat down at the “whites only” Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. When they were denied service, the students refused to give up their seats, beginning what would become known as the sit-in movement. Within months, the movement had spread to over 50 cities across the South. The momentum that these four students started in Greensboro would contribute to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would outlaw segregation in public places.

In 2018, following a mass shooting at their school, students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School connected millions of young people across the country via digital activism, galvanizing the movement against gun violence. Their efforts culminated in the March for Our Lives demonstration--one of the largest protests in our Nation’s history.

The work of the Sunrise movement has propelled proposed legislation such as the Green New Deal into the mainstream media spotlight. As part of this movement, millions of youth have raised their voices through protests and school walk-outs to bring attention and urgency for lawmakers to take action on climate change. In the US, as part of the 2019 Global Climate Strike, youth planned 1,000 events and thousands of students left classrooms to call on adults and elected leaders to prioritize climate justice.

A parent and frequent volunteer was banned from speaking at a school after she taught a class that encouraged students to create art about a cause they cared about. After the class, another teacher singled out and destroyed the Black Lives Matter posters that were created in the class. The school principal backed the teacher’s actions, calling the art and student’s message of support for Black lives “inappropriate.”

Outcome: The school agreed to implement remedies such as cultural competency training for all school staff and review policies around student speech on campus. 

A 14-year-old Black student was sent home from school because his haircut was deemed “distracting” by school officials. The student was excluded from class and critical learning time until his mother could get him an appointment for a haircut to have his hairstyle changed. 

Outcome: The student’s family sought the help of the ACLU, who worked with the district for a resolution. The district implemented a new dress code that removed ambiguous language and minimized restrictions on students' clothing and hair.

A student was sent home after wearing a shirt to school that read  “Nobody Knows I’m a Lesbian.” The student was called into the vice principal’s office and told that she couldn’t display her personal beliefs on a T-shirt. The administration claimed the shirt was “disruptive,” “sexually suggestive,” and “degrades religious values.” The student was sent home despite California state law which mandates discussions of LGBT issues and people in the classroom.

Outcome: ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed a lawsuit on behalf of the student. The resulting settlement allows the student to wear her shirt without the threat of punishment or retaliation. It also updates the dress code district-wide to make it clear that students can express their own identity and their support for other students’ identities – including identities of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other protected groups. The settlement also requires that District administrators attend professional development training to bring them up-to-date on their duty to protect free speech.

A Native American graduating senior was denied permission by district officials to wear a small eagle feather on his graduation cap during the ceremony. The school district denied the student’s request despite state and federal laws that protect freedom of expression and recognize the religious significance of eagle feathers for Native Americans.

Outcome: The student’s family sought the help of the ACLU, who sent a formal letter to the district. The district again refused to accommodate the request. The ACLU filed an emergency lawsuit. A hearing was set, but by that time the student and the District had entered into a settlement agreement that allowed the student to wear the eagle feather during the graduation ceremony.

A school district’s dress code banned long hair and earrings for male students, “exotic clothing and makeup,” hairstyles that “cause undue attention,” and beards. All of which enable bias against students of color, transgender, and gender-nonconforming students.

Outcome: The community succeeded in amending the dress code to remove gendered language and to create an additional appeals process for students who wish to challenge any future discriminatory dress code decisions.

Two high school seniors had their pro-LGBTQ yearbook quotes removed from their senior yearbook by an adult adviser who wrongly deemed them “political” and “sexual” in nature.

Outcome: The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the district and school administrators on behalf of the two students, arguing that the school's censorship was in violation of the student's free speech rights and right to be free of anti-LGBTQ bias in California schools. As a result, the school district agreed to reinsert students’ yearbook quotes in the High School Yearbook.

In December 1965 in Iowa, three high school students wore black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. School officials responded by enacting a no-armband policy even though there were no existing policies that prohibited the wearing of symbolic clothing or accessories. The school threatened to suspend any student who came to school wearing a black armband.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students and affirmed that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

A high school student in Washington was suspended for making a speech that included sexual innuendos at a school assembly. The speech violated a rule the high school had that prohibited conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures."

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the student’s suspension did not violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In the court’s decision, Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), and speech that was simply vulgar.

Students taking a journalism class at a high school in Missouri wrote stories about teen pregnancy and divorce. The principal blocked the articles from being published in the school’s newspaper.  A trial court ruled that the school had the authority to remove the articles because they were written as part of a class.

The students appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed the decision of the lower court. The ruling stated that the newspaper was a "public forum" that extended beyond the school.  

In a 5-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the principal's actions were constitutional because the newspaper was not intended as a public forum, but rather as a part of a class. Therefore, the publication was subject to review by school officials.

In 2002, a senior at a high school in Alaska attended the Olympic Torch Relay as part of a school-supervised activity. At the event, the student held a poster that read, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. The Principal confiscated the poster stating that it promoted illegal drug use and suspended the student for ten days. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ruled in favor of the principal, stating that the First Amendment did not protect the student’s actions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision and held that the student’s poster was constitutionally protected. 

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not prevent school administrators from restricting student speech that can be reasonably seen as promoting illegal drug use