I’ve talked to plenty of people in the legal system, and I’ve heard one phrase a lot.
If you can’t argue the law, argue the facts. If you can’t argue the facts, argue the law. A family in Texas is obviously arguing the facts.
Pete Palmer, a sophomore at Waxahachie High School in Texas, was sent home from school for wearing a John Edwards 2008 T-shirt.
The family is arguing Palmer’s free speech was violated.
“It’s a First Amendment constitutional right that people have fought and died for and I don’t know why he should give it up just because Waxahachie thinks it would be okay or neat for him to do so,” Paul Palmer said.
The problem is that he and his family should have known the policy.
“T-shirts, other than (school) clubs, organizations, sports, or spirit t-shirts, college or university t-shirts or solid-colored t-shirts, are prohibited,” according to the policy.
The first defense for the family would be, in my mind, Tinker v. Des Moines School District. Kids weren’t allowed to wear black armbands in protest of war, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
In that case and others, the Supreme Court has often ruled against those who created policies specifically tailored to stifle certain types of speech. The family would have a great argument if that was the case.
Problem is, that’s not the case. Waxahachie’s policy wasn’t banning political T-shirts. It was banning T-shirts, except shirts that promote schools or sports teams. That means you can’t wear a “Save Mary Kate” T-shirt, just the same as a T-shirt for any candidate for any office.
If the Palmers, or any other family, have a problem with the policies of their respective school, they’re probably better off arguing it before they break them instead of doing so after the fact and invoking a sentimental argument.
