Not a good fit
S
Friday, Sept. 21, 2007
Statesman
INSIDE OUT
Stevenson High School 1 Stevenson Dr. Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Volume 40 F Issue 6
Preview Statesman editors give you a sneak peak of this issue!
Features The 1950s have returned. Learn about the culture and trends of the time period as homecoming week approaches. Page 9.
Sports Find out why the field hockey team only had two practices before its game. Page 13.
Opinions Take a look at the Bull’s-Eye, our modified version of Hits and Misses, to find out the good and bad of the last few weeks. Page 6.
Word on the street Ducktail 1. A popular trend for guys in the 1950s where they greased back hair and flipped it up like a duck tail in the back. See Page 9 for more 1950s trends.
By the Number By the Number can be found on several pages and allows Statesman readers an interesting statistic relating to the topic of the page.
Photo Illustration by Jenna Rodrigues INSIDE OUT. Last Friday, clothing tags hung from the necks of seniors who wore shirts reading “.08 legally gone.” These students were forced to either switch shirts or flip them inside out. Although many of the affected seniors felt their rights were violated, U.S. Supreme Court decions say otherwise.
Not a good fit Q and
Student behind banned T-shirts says her First Amendment rights were violated
Past Supreme Court cases have ruled against students Jordy McNamara
Statesman News Editor
Last Friday morning as students entered school, a group of seniors were pulled aside, all with one thing noticeably in common: their shirts. These bright green T-shirts, with the words “.08” on the front and “Legally gone” on the back, have been the topic of conversation amongst the senior class in the past week. “It is very unsettling for the adults at this school,” Principal Janet Gonzalez said. “The contents of this shirt were definitely not acceptable for school, and we cannot advocate any substance abuse.” Despite teacher and administrator disapproval, Lizz McCrindle ’08, who headed the project to have the shirts made, said she has never received such support from her peers. “I had my whole table watching me as they walked me to [Assistant Principal Pat Ihmels’] office,” McCrindle said. This wasn’t the first time McCrindle had spoken with Ihmels about the shirts. “Last Wednesday, she brought me in and we looked at the shirt one by one and they told me they were banned,” McCrindle said. During this meeting, McCrindle said that she was asked to inform everyone who had bought a shirt that the shirts had been banned from school. “I sent out a message on Facebook to everyone who bought one telling them what happened, but it only made them want to wear it more,” she said. When the seniors arrived at school wearing the T-shirts, they were asked to either change shirts or turn them inside out, and McCrindle was escorted to Ihmel’s office. With the banning of this shirt, among other items she and her friends designed over the summer, McCrindle believes her First Amend-
ment rights have been violated. “A lot of people feel that their rights were taken away,” she said. She specifically cited freedom of expression and freedom of speech. In the past, the courts have tended to side with schools in cases like these. This past June, the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of the school in Morse v. Frederick, often called the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case. In 2002 in Juneau, Alaska, an 18-yearold held up a sign reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a torch parade for the Olympics. He was suspended from his high school, leading him to believe his rights had been violated. The case reached the Supreme Court, and the justices ruled that if an expression related to or promoted drug abuse, the school had the right to censor it. It also said that if the expression were intended for political or social reasons, the school could not ban the item. “Courts have given school officials a fair share of leeway in setting up dress codes,” Mike Hiestand, lawyer and legal consultant for the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, Va., said in a phone interview. “But they have to stand back when something is worn to convey a certain message.” The school guidebook also includes a section banning clothing referencing alcohol or drugs. This, and past court rulings cause Jim Tidwell, attorney and Journalism Department Chair at Eastern Illinois University, to believe the students rights have not been violated. “I really don’t think their rights were violated,” Tidwell said. “This is a question of freedom of speech. The courts have made exceptions for certain categories, and I think a Tshirt like this would fall into that exception.” Both Gonzalez and Ihmels agreed that the school has to send a message about safety in this case. “It’s our job to draw the line and to do what’s best for all kids,” Gonzalez said. “That shirt might not be unsafe today, but it’s sending a message for the future.”
A
Jim Tidwell, Eastern Illinois Journalism Chair and Illinois law expert, helps explain the rights of students in Ilinois. Q: What is Illinois law regarding student’s rights? A: “It basically is the same as what the Tinker case said. If the piece of clothing causes a significant disruption, then the school can ban it.” Q: What types of messages are protected? A: “The more political a message is, it becomes a different story. In this case, the shirt doesn’t really represent anything political, so I can’t see a strong legal case for the shirts. If you are advocating illegal activities on school grounds, it will not be protected.” Q: What history do court cases have with cases like these? A: “It’s always a question of the dress codes and if those are freedom of speech. If the school shirts are not school sponsored, then really, it’s up to the school to decide whether it causes a disruption or not.”
Friday, Sept. 21, 2007
Statesman
INSIDE OUT
Stevenson High School 1 Stevenson Dr. Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Volume 40 F Issue 6
Preview Statesman editors give you a sneak peak of this issue!
Features The 1950s have returned. Learn about the culture and trends of the time period as homecoming week approaches. Page 9.
Sports Find out why the field hockey team only had two practices before its game. Page 13.
Opinions Take a look at the Bull’s-Eye, our modified version of Hits and Misses, to find out the good and bad of the last few weeks. Page 6.
Word on the street Ducktail 1. A popular trend for guys in the 1950s where they greased back hair and flipped it up like a duck tail in the back. See Page 9 for more 1950s trends.
By the Number By the Number can be found on several pages and allows Statesman readers an interesting statistic relating to the topic of the page.
Photo Illustration by Jenna Rodrigues INSIDE OUT. Last Friday, clothing tags hung from the necks of seniors who wore shirts reading “.08 legally gone.” These students were forced to either switch shirts or flip them inside out. Although many of the affected seniors felt their rights were violated, U.S. Supreme Court decions say otherwise.
Not a good fit Q and
Student behind banned T-shirts says her First Amendment rights were violated
Past Supreme Court cases have ruled against students Jordy McNamara
Statesman News Editor
Last Friday morning as students entered school, a group of seniors were pulled aside, all with one thing noticeably in common: their shirts. These bright green T-shirts, with the words “.08” on the front and “Legally gone” on the back, have been the topic of conversation amongst the senior class in the past week. “It is very unsettling for the adults at this school,” Principal Janet Gonzalez said. “The contents of this shirt were definitely not acceptable for school, and we cannot advocate any substance abuse.” Despite teacher and administrator disapproval, Lizz McCrindle ’08, who headed the project to have the shirts made, said she has never received such support from her peers. “I had my whole table watching me as they walked me to [Assistant Principal Pat Ihmels’] office,” McCrindle said. This wasn’t the first time McCrindle had spoken with Ihmels about the shirts. “Last Wednesday, she brought me in and we looked at the shirt one by one and they told me they were banned,” McCrindle said. During this meeting, McCrindle said that she was asked to inform everyone who had bought a shirt that the shirts had been banned from school. “I sent out a message on Facebook to everyone who bought one telling them what happened, but it only made them want to wear it more,” she said. When the seniors arrived at school wearing the T-shirts, they were asked to either change shirts or turn them inside out, and McCrindle was escorted to Ihmel’s office. With the banning of this shirt, among other items she and her friends designed over the summer, McCrindle believes her First Amend-
ment rights have been violated. “A lot of people feel that their rights were taken away,” she said. She specifically cited freedom of expression and freedom of speech. In the past, the courts have tended to side with schools in cases like these. This past June, the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of the school in Morse v. Frederick, often called the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case. In 2002 in Juneau, Alaska, an 18-yearold held up a sign reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a torch parade for the Olympics. He was suspended from his high school, leading him to believe his rights had been violated. The case reached the Supreme Court, and the justices ruled that if an expression related to or promoted drug abuse, the school had the right to censor it. It also said that if the expression were intended for political or social reasons, the school could not ban the item. “Courts have given school officials a fair share of leeway in setting up dress codes,” Mike Hiestand, lawyer and legal consultant for the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, Va., said in a phone interview. “But they have to stand back when something is worn to convey a certain message.” The school guidebook also includes a section banning clothing referencing alcohol or drugs. This, and past court rulings cause Jim Tidwell, attorney and Journalism Department Chair at Eastern Illinois University, to believe the students rights have not been violated. “I really don’t think their rights were violated,” Tidwell said. “This is a question of freedom of speech. The courts have made exceptions for certain categories, and I think a Tshirt like this would fall into that exception.” Both Gonzalez and Ihmels agreed that the school has to send a message about safety in this case. “It’s our job to draw the line and to do what’s best for all kids,” Gonzalez said. “That shirt might not be unsafe today, but it’s sending a message for the future.”
A
Jim Tidwell, Eastern Illinois Journalism Chair and Illinois law expert, helps explain the rights of students in Ilinois. Q: What is Illinois law regarding student’s rights? A: “It basically is the same as what the Tinker case said. If the piece of clothing causes a significant disruption, then the school can ban it.” Q: What types of messages are protected? A: “The more political a message is, it becomes a different story. In this case, the shirt doesn’t really represent anything political, so I can’t see a strong legal case for the shirts. If you are advocating illegal activities on school grounds, it will not be protected.” Q: What history do court cases have with cases like these? A: “It’s always a question of the dress codes and if those are freedom of speech. If the school shirts are not school sponsored, then really, it’s up to the school to decide whether it causes a disruption or not.”
