Law & Courts

Court Says ‘Gifties’ Misapplied Talents

By Andrew Trotter — March 20, 2007 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Precocious maybe, but a group of gifted students showed little merit in a lawsuit they brought against the Chicago school system, a federal appeals court has ruled.

Twenty-four 8th graders in Beaubien Elementary School’s program for the gifted in 2003 contended in the suit that their principal violated their First Amendment free-speech rights by disciplining them for wearing T-shirts they had designed.

The students were protesting what they claimed was an unfair vote for a T-shirt design to be worn by all the school’s 8th graders in the 2002-03 school year.

There were tensions between students in the 8th grade gifted program, which draws students from all over Chicago, and neighborhood students at the 1,000-student school, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a member of the three-judge panel considering the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, noted in his opinion.

The gifted students referred to themselves as “gifties” and sometimes to the other students as “tards,” for “retards,” Judge Posner wrote in a unanimous Feb. 20 opinion.

Michael D. Brandt, a student in the gifted program, submitted to the contest his cartoon of a grinning student giving a “thumbs-up” sign and walking Beaubien Elementary’s bulldog mascot.

Gifted students in Chicago were disciplined for wearing T-shirts with this design, after it failed to win a school contest. The students contended their free-speech rights were violated, but a federal appeals court disagreed.

Gifted students in Chicago were disciplined for wearing T-shirts with this design, after it failed to win a school contest. The student contended their free-speech rights were violated, but a federal appeals court disagreed.

The “gifties” voted as a bloc for Mr. Brandt’s design for the 8th grade class T-shirt—which would ensure a win, they thought, because the 72 other 8th graders would presumably spread their votes across 29 other designs. But the teacher in charge unexpectedly held a runoff vote for the three most popular designs, including Mr. Brandt’s. With a field of three, the gifted students’ bloc-voting scheme failed.

So Mr. Brandt had his design printed on T-shirts with the words “Gifties 2003” added to the back.

The gifted students wore the shirts to school, in defiance of Beaubien’s principal, who said that would be disrespectful and possibly disruptive.

The students were punished by being kept out of gym and lab classes and by being barred from after-school activities on nine days when at least one of them wore the shirt. Later, the principal, on the advice of a school intervention team, decided to allow the T-shirt. Nonetheless, the students asked in their suit that school officials be barred from telling anyone about the incident, such as colleges or potential employers.

In his opinion for the court’s ruling against the suit, Judge Posner slyly gave the “gifties” credit for intelligence.

“But craftily,” he said, “they first wore the forbidden shirt on the day when citywide tests were administered to public school students. They figured the school would not take disciplinary action against them on that day lest that lower the school’s average test scores (they are gifties, after all).”

Judge Posner said there had been no constitutional violation: “[T]he picture and the few words imprinted on the Brandt T-shirt are no more expressive of an idea or opinion that the First Amendment might be thought to protect than a young child’s talentless infantile drawing which Brandt’s design successfully mimics.”

The judge gave some credit to the students’ contention that the T-shirts became protected expression because they were worn as part of a protest against the class T-shirt vote.

“But the importance of context cuts both ways,” the judge wrote. “The protesters in this case are … privileged schoolchildren in a school that contains a majority of nonprivileged children. They insist that unless their T-shirt is adopted by the entire 8th grade, they will as it were secede, and flaunt their own T-shirt. They do not recognize the principal’s authority or the legitimacy of the school’s procedures for determining the winner of contests.”

The 7th Circuit court panel ordered the students to pay the 420,000-student Chicago district’s legal costs of $10,556.

See Also

For more stories on this topic see Law & Courts.

A version of this article appeared in the March 21, 2007 edition of Education Week

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Leadership in Education: Building Collaborative Teams and Driving Innovation
Learn strategies to build strong teams, foster innovation, & drive student success.
Content provided by Follett Learning
School & District Management K-12 Essentials Forum Principals, Lead Stronger in the New School Year
Join this free virtual event for a deep dive on the skills and motivation you need to put your best foot forward in the new year.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Privacy & Security Webinar
Navigating Modern Data Protection & Privacy in Education
Explore the modern landscape of data loss prevention in education and learn actionable strategies to protect sensitive data.
Content provided by  Symantec & Carahsoft

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Biden's Title IX Rule Is Now Blocked in 14 States
A judge in Kansas issued the third injunction against the Biden administration's rule granting protections to LGBTQ+ students.
4 min read
Kansas high school students, family members and advocates rally for transgender rights, Jan. 31, 2024, at the Statehouse in Topeka, Kan. On Tuesday, July 2, a federal judge in Kansas blocked a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students from being enforced in four states, including Kansas and a patchwork of places elsewhere across the nation.
Kansas high school students, family members and advocates rally for transgender rights, Jan. 31, 2024, at the Statehouse in Topeka, Kan. On Tuesday, July 2, a federal judge in Kansas blocked a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students from being enforced in four states, including Kansas, and a patchwork of places elsewhere across the nation.
John Hanna/AP
Law & Courts Student Says Snapchat Enabled Teacher's Abuse. Supreme Court Won't Hear His Case
The high court, over a dissent by two justices, decline to review the scope of Section 230 liability protection for social media platforms.
4 min read
The United States Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2024.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2024. The high court declined on July 2 to take up a case about whether Snapchat could be held partially liable for a teacher's sexual abuse of a student.
Aashish Kiphayet/NurPhoto via AP
Law & Courts What the Supreme Court's Chevron Decision Could Mean for Biden's Title IX Rule
The decision overrules a 40-year-old precedent and could impact lawsuits challenging the final Title IX rule.
5 min read
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2024, in Washington.
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2024, in Washington. The high court on June 28 overruled a longtime precedent and held that courts, not federal agencies, have the primary authority to interpret ambiguous federal statutes.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Law & Courts Religious Charter School Is Unconstitutional, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules
The state high court says the planned Catholic virtual charter school violates a state provision against aid to 'sectarian' institutions.
4 min read
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is pictured in the state Capitol building in Oklahoma City, May 19, 2014. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, June 25, 2024, that the approval of the nation's first state-funded Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School, is unconstitutional.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is pictured in the state Capitol building in Oklahoma City, May 19, 2014. The high court ruled Tuesday, June 25, 2024, that the approval of the nation's first state-funded Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School, is unconstitutional.
Sue Ogrocki/AP