I've been writing my seminar paper on a 1965 Supreme Court decision that involved this idea of inferring information from the Bill of Rights in order to reach a possibly sociologically preferable end, so I understand your point about the lack of Constitutional basis for such decisions, and I agree that this decision could have future implications for the First Amendment. But at some point I feel the courts must be given a little leeway with the Constitution. The document was drafted when there were no T-shirts, let alone offensive T-shirts, to be ruled against, and the laws of the 18th century clearly cannot account for 21st century eventualities. The Constitution is a document of sensitivity to Americans; we have learned over the years to respect it, and with good reason. But it is not, in my opinion, faultless, and supreme courts are here to uphold the spirit of the Constitution--protecting the American people. (I don't know if this makes complete sense; I'm still trying to work through my opinions on this to some degree, so I realize there are some contradictions in this statement.) But the thing I do have a problem with your statement that this would be different if the case had been about racism or anti-Semitism. Do you mean it would have been treated differently or do you mean that it SHOULD have been treated differently? The first, I think, would be guesswork, but I understand your point. The second meaning doesn't make sense to me. How would a racist shirt be any different in intention or effect than a homophobic shirt? They are equally hurtful and, I feel, completely inappropriate in the school environment. Although this decision does call the power of the First Amendment into question, and I am worried about its future implications, I feel that it stems from a genuine concern for students' emotional well-being.

The biggest issue I take with your column is that you do not include an example of racism or anti-Semitism in schools. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it would greatly strengthen the argument if you did include an example, especially one similar to the situation with the T-shirt described above. Also, you might want to clarify what you mean when you say there is no right to be "free from attacks on school campuses." Certainly there is a right to be free from physical attack and at least to some extent psychological and verbal attack as well. Another argument I see in support of your opinion is that just as LGBT students could feel injured by the t-shirt, non-LGBT students could claim to be made equally uncomfortable by pro-LGBT t-shirts, and thus disrupt their right to learn just the same. Not that I am made uncomfortable by the Day of Silence or the t-shirts, but it is conceivable that some heterosexual people would be.

-------- Wow, tons of comments! I'll address each of you in turn, and try to clarify some points myself. Sara, it sounds like you're researching the difference between originalism and constitutional constructionism, or a "living constitution." The former says that we obey the words of the Constitution and its meaning during when it was written, while the latter supports re-interpreting the Constitution to fit the "times." The issue is, as you said, these "socially preferable ends." Are they really our aims? Since societies constantly change, these ends will change in accordance--and then what do we have with our Constitution? The document would have no meaning, and America would lose a fundamental part of its history and identity. I must take issue with your "document of sensitivity" statement--it is THE document of sensitivity. The Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." As you can see, the Supreme Courts are not here to uphold the spirit of the Constitution, they are here to uphold the Constitution itself. To change the spirit of the Constitution, you rely on the legislative branch of the government and the amendment process, not the judicial branch whose job is merely to interpret. Re. your other question, I mean that, had the issue been about racism or anti-Semitism, the issue would have been treated differently, but I was trying to say it SHOULD be treated the same. The racist shirt is not different in intention or effect than a homophobic shirt, but the issue would be treated differently. I suppose they are equally hurtful, but they are equally hurtful to different groups. The issue I was trying to address in my article was how certain minorities are being treated with more "privilege," while others (and majorities) are clearly disadvantaged. You'll note that I did not necessarily argue for or against homosexuality--merely the fact that both sides of the argument have the right to express their opinions. Even if it stems from a genuine concern for students' emotional well-being, the First Amendment is the First Amendment. Elizabeth, I suppose that people shouldn't have to put up with harassment at school, but there's a fine line between harassment and calling someone else's views harassment because they conflict with your own. If I come to school wearing a pro-life t-shirt, am I necessarily harassing pro-choice people? No, I don't believe I am, and some people need to understand that mature disagreements do not connote harassment. In my opinion, the individual should have the greater say in whether they're being harassed, but there are also limits, commonly accepted standards. If a friend punches me in the shoulder, I could legitimately take the case to the administration. How was I supposed to know it was a "friendly" punch?! After all, I suffered momentary harm. I'm not comparing verbal insults to passing physical pain, but I think my point remains the same--don't freak out at the drop of a pin. You do raise an interesting point in the difference between the court's ruling and actual effect. Close reading indicates that the court merely said the school could disallow students to wear t-shirts condemning homosexuality--but this is nonetheless a violation of the First Amendment! Some research indicates Poway High School is a public high school, so it's not necessarily automatically exempt from the rules (for example, religious day schools don't have to support religious freedom). The school can have their own rules, but these rules themselves cannot be discriminatory. In other words, there can be a dress code saying students are only allowed to wear solid-color polo shirts, but there can't be a rule against anti-homosexual shirts without an accompanying rule prohibiting gay rights activism! Such a rule would be discriminatory in that it prevents the First Amendment Rights of those against homosexuality while doing nothing to limit the rights of those who support it. Best to leave the whole issue alone and allow it all. It's either commonly understood, or there is a Supreme Court decision, about school dress codes and free speech. Essentially, I think you can't silence both sides. Sam, that's a very interesting point. Wouldn't it actually detract from my argument if I provided an example of racism or anti-Semitism being prevented in a case similar to this whole t-shirt thing? Fact is, I couldn't find any such case -- and this just proves my point! Admittedly, I didn't engage in rigorous research. I went to Google News, and searched for the following terms: "First Amendment racism school." 30 results. I only got 3 results by substituting in anti-Semitism for racism. Once I put in homosexual for racism, I got 115 results. This is hardly scientific, but I believe it proves my point -- one type of case gets more attention than another. I guess I could have been more clear about quot;being free from attack on school campus." Physical attack is of course, not allowed -- the police can often get involved in accordance with real law, as opposed to school bylaws. There may be a right to be free from psychological and verbal attack as well -- but only to an extent, especially when said right would conflict with the Constitution. Your hypothetical argument in support of my opinion was actually what I was going to write the original article about in the first place. If one is allowed to wear pro-LGBT shirts, why can one not wear anti-LGBT shirts? Some sense of "fairness" must be enforced. Ellen, I believe I somewhat addressed your point on dress code in my comments to Elizabeth. Obviously, if a school has a dress code and a student fragrantly breaks said dress code, they cannot assert the school is infringing on their constitutional right for free speech. However, as I've said before, if a school allows shirts with huge crosses on them then they surely have to allow shirts with other religious design. I sympathize with the person at Central HS who was constantly sent home for the shirt with the Wiccan pentacle (even if I don't necessarily want to get to know them better or be around them, hehe). I also found this article (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060426.html) which provides an interesting analysis of the issue (as well as another case in Topeka, Kansas that I found out about yesterday from a completely independent source). I hope I've addressed all your comments, guys! It was kind of inspiring, a little embarrassing, and mostly *agh, I can't believe I have to address these comments instead of studying for Calc AP.* Really though, I enjoyed reading all your thoughts.