James Thibault argues in his My Turn that the Tinker Supreme Court case should be expanded from covering teachers and students to parents and possibly the general public.
However, first amendment rights are always subject to time, space and manner considerations. The courts have consistently considered schools to be limited public forums, where free speech can be curtailed in order to balance a teacher’s and student’s constitutional rights to maintain an orderly learning environment. The standard in Tinker is one of substantial disruption.
In this case, we have parents attending a sports game. I do not think this will be considered a property right that grants free speech in this context because they are guests on school property and do not have the same rights as students or employees. New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association governs high school play and article IX section 3 of their bylaws on sportsmanship under taunting prohibits singling out a player from another team. Participants can be ejected from contests for “Any actions or comments by coaches, players, or other game personnel which are intended to bait, anger, embarrass, ridicule, or demean others, whether or not the deeds or words are vulgar or racist.” Gender is specifically included in this bylaw.
The arms bands seemed to be targeting an individual player from a visiting team that had a court order allowing her to play. It seems like it fits the definition of taunting and the administration was correct to step in and stop it. In closing, participating in extra-curricular activities is not an established property right of students. In my opinion, the facts of this case do not trigger the protective provisions of Tinker.
Dean Cascadden
Meredith