KBS Reference Desk: Cheerleader Religious Speech

Q: Our varsity cheerleaders decided to wear overalls to our homecoming pep rally and decorated them with school spirit and other personal messages in paint and patchwork. Some of the cheerleaders have decorated their overalls with small crosses and scripture messages. Are the cheerleaders’ decorated overalls considered protected speech under the First Amendment?

A: Yes. A school district’s ability to restrict religious speech is dependent upon both the content and the context of the message itself. In the above example, without evidence of disruption, and because the painting was entirely student initiated, the speech is likely to be considered permissible private student speech.

It is well-settled that students in public school maintain their constitutional rights to freedom of speech while attending school or school-sponsored events. However, the rights of students in a public school setting are not completely equal to the rights of individuals in other private arenas. Courts continue to analyze the extent of public school students’ free speech rights under the standard first adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the famous Vietnam protest armband case, Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. School. Since the time of Tinker, student-led school speech has typically fallen into one of three categories: (1) government speech (e.g., student delivering principal-written morning announcements over PA system); (2) school-sponsored speech (e.g., student expression in school-sponsored newspaper); or (3) private speech.

The cheerleader’s overall decorations will most likely be considered private speech because the markings are not a message made by or on behalf of the school district (overalls purchased by students and no direction given on content of decoration), nor do the decorations reflect a message that the school district affirmatively promotes. Instead, courts would view the markings as speech that the district merely tolerates. In such circumstances, a school may restrict the content of private speech only if the district reasonably forecasts that the speech: (1) will lead to substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, (2) will impinge upon the rights of other students, or (3) is offensive to the school environment, such as vulgar language or speech that advocates illegal/criminal activity.

An example of disruption sufficient to allow the school district to restrict student speech might be an overtly offensive religious message, such as “Jesus Hates Gays.” In such a scenario, the district could prohibit the speech based on its desire to avoid disruption caused by opposing views and/or to prevent violence resulting from the hate speech. In contrast, here, the cheerleaders’ clothing decorations consisted of scripture and religious emblems only. Further, the messages/images were displayed by only a handful of cheerleaders, for presumably one school event and in small enough detail as not to be seen by the majority of the student population. Finally, the context of the decorations is clearly personal to each cheerleader – that is, each cheerleader’s overalls are different and personal to them (rather than a team-mandated theme). Taken together, the markings are clearly private speech that is non-offensive and not likely to impinge upon the rights of other students. This conclusion follows the well-known Kountze cheerleader case, in which a Texas appeals court (on remand from the Texas Supreme Court) upheld the Kountze High School cheerleaders’ right to create and decorate banners with religious messages and scripture for use during football games. The crux of the Court’s opinion focused on the fact that there was no “substantial disruption or material interference with school activities” sufficient to allow the school to restrict the speech. In August 2018, the Texas Supreme Court denied the school district’s request for review of the case, upholding the case in favor of the cheerleaders.

To conclude, most cases of student speech will be analyzed under the private speech factors, requiring a fact-intensive inquiry dependent upon both content and context and a significant fear of substantial disruption. Accordingly, for specific questions, administrators should contact their local school attorney.

Related Posts

Recent Articles

KBS Reference Desk: On Call Employees Over Holidays
December 17, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Holiday Decorations
December 10, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Removal of Library Books
December 3, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Attendance Waivers
November 19, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: HB 103 Texas Active Shooter Alert
November 12, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Remote Learning and ADA-Funding
November 5, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: CBD Oil
October 29, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Temporary Custodians of Record – TPIA
October 22, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Dyslexia Handbook Update
October 15, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Peace Officer Legislation
October 8, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: HB 1525 PTO Donations
October 1, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: State Certifications Update – SB 13 & SB 19
September 24, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Accelerated and Supplemental Instruction HB 4545
September 17, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Active Threat Excercises
September 10, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: HB 1927 Firearms
September 3, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Remote Participation in Board Meetings
August 27, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Waiving Minimum Attendance Requirements for Seriously Ill Students
August 20, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Inquiring About Vaccine Status
August 13, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Temporary Suspension of TPIA due to Catastrophe
August 6, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Standard for Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect
July 30, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Bullying Policies and Reporting SB 2050
July 23, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Homeschoolers and UIL
July 16, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: TOMA Suspension Extension
July 9, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: Revision to Resignation without Penalty Deadline
July 2, 2021
KBS Reference Desk: SB 179 School Counselors
June 25, 2021