Over the course of our common history, brave men and women of all racial groups–whites, blacks, Latinos, Asian and all other nationalities- have served in the armed forces and given their lives to protect our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and to protest. We all cherish those two rights. The question is under what circumstances can those two fundamental rights be restricted? The federal courts have ruled that those rights are not absolute and can be restricted in a school setting to curtail threats of violence or disruption of school activities. That is what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held when it affirmed a lower court ruling in Dariano vs. MHUSD that the administrators at Live Oak High School acted properly on May, 5, 2010. The court upheld a finding that administrative actions were motivated by concern over the safety of all Live Oak students when they requested four then enrolled students to remove or turn inside out clothing that had images of the American flag.
The administrator’s decisions were not made in a vacuum. The court record shows they were in response to heightened concerns for the safety of all students due to existing racial tensions. The validity of the concerns are reflected in the Courts opinion that reads “The warnings of violence came, as the district court noted, “in [the] context of ongoing racial tension and gang violence within the school, and after a near-violent altercation had erupted during the prior Cinco de Mayo…” (page 10 of Opinion). It appears that the racial tension became heightened in 2010 during the school sponsored Cinco De Mayo Celebration and involved groups of mostly Latinos and mostly white students. The Appeals court gave great leeway to the discretion of the administrators to intervene and the actions they instituted to deal with the perceived and serious racial based threat of violence, including putting some restrictions on freedom of speech. Our school administrators had a duty to protect all students and they acted accordingly and reasonably, the opinion notes.
No one argues that the school administrators could not have handled things differently or that some other administrator would have reacted differently to the evolving and fluid escalation of racial tensions existing at the school at that time. However, the Appeals Court refused to second guess interventions of our school administrators. Sufficient to say that their interventions were reasonable and tailored to deal with the potential perceived threats of racial based violence.
With these ideas in mind we believe the appeals court ruled correctly and staunchly support the opinion of the court that fundamental rights can be restricted when student safety is compromised. This by no means undermines our belief and support of the U.S. Constitution or American flag. However, it is our opinion that above all else we want to know that when we drop our children off at school in the morning that we will also be able to pick them up after school in the same safe condition as when they were dropped off. As to this point, there is no compromising, even if it involves restricting fundamental rights.
