Seventh Circuit hears oral arguments in anti-gay T-shirt case
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard testimony in a high school student's appeal to wear a T-shirt expressing opposition to homosexuality. Alexander Nuxoll, a Neuqua Valley High School sophomore, was banned from wearing a T-shirt reading “Be Happy, Not Gay” to school. Nuxoll and one-time student Heidi Zamecnik, who wore a similar T-shirt to school in 2006, filed a lawsuit saying their civil rights had been violated. Indian Prairie Unit District 204 later said the students could wear a T-shirt that read “Be Happy, Be Straight,” but the students refused. Last year, a judge ruled against them. The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian litigation group representing the students, said they should be allowed to express their views. “Christian students shouldn't be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” attorney Nate Kellum said. “The Constitution prohibits school officials from singling out one viewpoint for censorship while allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard.” Appellate Judge Richard Posner argued that the T-shirt's message was just a play on words to reinforce the students' message. “It's so tepid,” Posner said. “It's just a pun because gay once meant happy. It's a joke.” But school district attorney Thomas Canna said the shirt's message is no laughing matter. “I don't believe it's a joke at all,” he said, “especially for someone struggling with their identity.” The school district has argued that the T-shirts are derogatory and cause disruption to students' education.
Source: Chicago Tribune, 4/4/08, By Associated Press
[Editor’s Note: A summary of the district court’s opinion is below. The case has been redesignated Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie School District. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois has filed an amicus brief with the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI), also below, that supports neither party but argues (1) that the case should be governed by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969); (2) that, under Tinker, the court should rule that disparaging speech may be restricted only if school officials reasonably forecast that it will cause a substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities or impinge upon the rights of other students; (3) that the “impinging on the rights of others” prong only would be met where the disparaging speech constitutes harassment under existing law; and (4) that, in so ruling, the Seventh Circuit may need to reconsider some of its precedents that are more sympathetic to educators in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007), the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. The Illinois Association of School Boards and the Illinois Association of School Administrators answer with a brief supporting the school district, arguing that the lower court’s ruling is consistent with Morse and that the ACLU’s proposed strict standard would “prevent school officials from addressing demeaning behavior at its inception, and does not give adequate weight to the governmental interest in protecting all students from physical and psychological harm.”]
NSBA School Law pages on Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. #204
ACLU-IL brief
IASB/IASA brief