Legal representatives for parents who criticized the relatively new public school uniform policy will face off against Board of Education attorneys in U.S. District Court on Friday, Dec. 15 to determine if school officials can ban protest badges that display photos of Hitler Youth, the organization used by the Nazis to recruit German boys into the party.
Although some parents protesting the school district’s uniform policy have since modified the photos, several parents have taken the case to federal court, claiming that the school district’s prohibition of the original badges is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
“The badge suit concerns First Amendment rights, and is not in and of itself related to the uniform issue,” said parent Laurie Coles, an outspoken critic of the policy. “There would, however, have been no badge at all if it were not for our opposition to the uniform policy.”
In a brief filed with the court, Robert Merryman, attorney for the Bayonne School District, said the parents have no legal grounds to force schools to allow the badges.
“In order to preserve the integrity of the educational system and to allow school officials to make those decisions necessary to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning, this court should deny the request … and dismiss the complaint,” Merryman said.
How it got started
In October, school officials became aware that a fifth-grade student at P.S. No.14 was wearing a button in school protesting the uniform policy.
“The button that he was wearing did not have a picture on it, and it simply expressed disagreement with the uniform policy,” Merryman said in his brief. “No steps were taken to prohibit [him] from wearing the protest button.”
On Oct. 19, however, this same boy was caught distributing buttons that included the picture of Hitler Youth during his homeroom class, school officials say in their legal briefs. According to the briefs, the classroom teacher told the boy to collect the buttons.
“School policy prohibits students from distributing any items in class without prior approval,” Merryman said.
The boy returned to school the next day wearing the new button. Teachers told him to remove it.
At this point, Schools Superintendent Dr. Patricia McGeehan wrote the boy’s parents telling them the boy could not wear the button in school.
A month later, on Nov. 14, the boy again appeared in school wearing the Hitler Youth button, but McGeehan continued to permit the button that did not contain the image.
On Nov. 28, a fifth-grader at Woodrow Wilson School wore the same homemade button with the picture of Hitler Youth.
According to Merryman, both the teacher’s aide and the school principal found the button offensive. Principal Catherine Quinn told the parents the student would not be permitted to wear the button again.
Buttons were designed to make a point
Representing Laura DePinto, Michael LaRocco and Robin LaRocco are Hackensack attorneys Robert Vort and Karin White Morgen, who claim the school district was wrong in threatening students with suspension for wearing the buttons.
Coles and other parents claim that First Amendment infringements seem to be part of a pattern of behavior by the Board of Education in its actions regarding the uniforms.
“It’s interesting that people are so offended. It’s as if they think we are promoting Nazism, when in fact it is the exact opposite,” Coles said. “Hitler and his regime made many insidious inroads into the lives of German citizens, of which demanding that the children wear these uniforms was part of. Some of these efforts seemed innocuous enough at the time to the German citizenry, but we all know what the outcome was. Apparently they felt helpless and intimidated. Those of us who oppose the policy felt helpless, but not intimidated.”
Coles said the First Amendment protects not just speech that some may find offensive, but all speech.
“The wearing of this button by these two students did not cause any disruption or disturbance at their schools,” Coles said. “The legal brief submitted by our attorneys on Monday cites nine cases which support our position, protecting the First Amendment rights of students. The defendants in this case, who are the BBOE, Supt. McGeehan and the two principals of the students’ schools, are not claiming that the protest buttons caused a disturbance. They only claim that the buttons are ‘offensive to some Bayonne residents.’ ”
Coles said a 1969 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court said that school officials do not possess absolute authority over students, and that the Constitution applies to schools, just as much as to the rest of society.
“School officials do not have the right to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because they find the idea offensive or disagreeable,” she said. “Free speech protects a wide variety of speech and expression, which is integral to maintaining a democratic society.”
School district claims buttons were offensive
Merryman in his brief to the court, however, argued that Bayonne is a diverse community and that the school district has taken a very active role in teaching students tolerance, diversity and acceptance of other students.
“The elementary-school curriculum includes a comprehensive program of character education for all students beginning in Kindergarten,” Merryman said. “Students are not permitted to openly wear or display symbols of intolerance and hate in the elementary schools because they are contrary to the educational program, can be offensive and hurtful to particular students and staff, and have the potential to disrupt the educational program.”
Merryman argued that the staff and principals at the schools were offended by the image displayed on the buttons.
“The image of Hitler Youth is interpreted by most as a symbol of hate and intolerance,” Merryman said. “The display of this image is completely contrary to the education program and educational mission of the Bayonne elementary schools.”
He said the Bayonne School District has a dress-code policy that prohibits dress that would interfere with school work, create disorder or disrupt the educational programs.
Badge does not promote Hitler, parents say
Although some members of the community – especially World War II-era veterans – found the image of Hitler’s Youth objectionable, protesting parents say the image was not meant to compare the Board of Education to Hitler, but was intended as a protest against conforming to a single standard.
“It is, quite simply, just a very graphic representation of what enforced uniformity looks like,” Coles said. “That’s why people react strongly to it, because it is repulsive. My daughter was asked about her button by her classmates. They had no idea that the photo was from a history book or what it meant. She replied that she was wearing it to show that she doesn’t want to wear a uniform and all look the same.”
Why did they select Hitler Youth for the protest?
“The Hitler Youth image was chosen because we felt it represented the entire concept of uniforms as an insidious form of repression and denial of personal liberties in a democratic society, where these freedoms are protected by the Constitution,” Coles said. “The suggestion that another, more innocuous image would be allowable because it is less offensive, is to restrain free speech based upon others’ interpretation of the image. The Supreme Court has held in numerous challenges, that ‘government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.’ ”
Coles said the purpose of a protest is to provoke dialogue, conversation and the exchange of ideas, hopefully to make people think and perhaps see an issue from a different perspective.
“I happen to be Jewish, with grandparents who escaped the pogroms in Russia,” Coles said. “This picture brings to mind all of the reasons why we value our differences and cherish our ability to express ourselves in this country, and why serious forms of repression, such as mandatory school uniforms, feel so wrong.”