Barber Ex Rel. Barber v. Dearborn Public Schools
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18481, 286 F. Supp. 2d 847, 2003 WL 22305162 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Tinker standard, a public school may not prohibit student expression that conveys a political message unless officials can demonstrate specific facts that would reasonably lead them to forecast a material and substantial disruption of the educational environment; an undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is insufficient.
Facts:
- Bretton Barber, a junior at Dearborn High School, wore a t-shirt to school displaying a photograph of President George W. Bush with the caption 'International Terrorist' to express his views on the imminent war in Iraq.
- Dearborn High School has a student body where approximately 31.4% are of Arab descent, with many families having previously immigrated from Iraq.
- Barber wore the t-shirt through his morning classes without any reported incidents or disruptions.
- During the lunch period, another student approached Assistant Principal Michael Shelton, stated he was angry about the t-shirt, and said 'someone should take care of Brett for wearing that shirt,' though Shelton did not perceive an imminent threat of harm.
- A teacher also approached Shelton and commented that he thought the t-shirt 'may be inappropriate.'
- Based on these two comments, Shelton instructed Barber to turn the t-shirt inside out or remove it.
- When Barber refused, he called his father and left school for the remainder of the day.
- Principal Judith Coebly supported the ban, citing fears of disruption based on a different incident at another school more than ten years prior during Operation Desert Storm.
Procedural Posture:
- Bretton Barber, by his mother as next friend, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Dearborn Public Schools and school officials.
- The complaint alleged violations of Barber's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
- Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain the Defendants from prohibiting him from wearing the t-shirt to school.
- The District Court held a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school's prohibition of a student's t-shirt, which expresses a political opinion critical of the President, violate the student's First Amendment free speech rights when the prohibition is based on an undifferentiated fear of disturbance rather than evidence of actual or likely material and substantial disruption?
Opinions:
Majority - Duggan, District Judge
Yes. The school's prohibition of the t-shirt violates Barber's First Amendment rights because it was not justified by a reasonable forecast of material and substantial disruption. The controlling precedent is Tinker v. Des Moines, which requires more than a 'mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.' The court distinguished this case from Bethel v. Fraser (involving lewd and vulgar speech) and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (involving school-sponsored speech), finding Barber's t-shirt was pure political speech occurring on school grounds. The court found the evidence of potential disruption—one student's angry comment (which was not perceived as a direct threat) and one teacher's opinion—was insufficient to meet the Tinker standard. The principal's reliance on a decade-old incident at a different school and broad assumptions about how Iraqi students might react were deemed an 'undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance,' which is constitutionally inadequate to justify censorship.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the robust protection for student political speech established in Tinker v. Des Moines. It clarifies that school administrators bear a significant burden to justify censorship with specific, credible evidence of a likely substantial disruption, rather than relying on speculation, past unrelated events, or the controversial nature of the message itself. The ruling serves as a crucial check on the authority of schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination, reinforcing the principle that the schoolhouse is not an enclave of totalitarianism but a place where controversial ideas can be debated. This decision limits the ability of schools to restrict speech based on the potential for a hostile audience reaction, thereby protecting unpopular or minority viewpoints.
