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
Science Webinar
Spark Minds, Reignite Students & Teachers: STEM’s Role in Supporting Presence and Engagement
Is your district struggling with chronic absenteeism? Discover how STEM can reignite students' and teachers' passion for learning.
Content provided by Project Lead The Way
Recruitment & Retention Webinar EdRecruiter 2025 Survey Results: The Outlook for Recruitment and Retention
See exclusive findings from EdWeek’s nationwide survey of K-12 job seekers and district HR professionals on recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction. 
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

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 How Educators Feel About the Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold TikTok Ban
The Supreme Court upheld a law targeting TikTok, increasing the uncertainty for an app highly popular among U.S. educators and students.
5 min read
Sarah Baus, left, of Charleston, S.C., and Tiffany Cianci, who says she is a "long-form educational content creator," livestream to TikTok outside the Supreme Court, on Jan. 10, 2025, in Washington.
Sarah Baus, left, of Charleston, S.C., and Tiffany Cianci, who says she is a "long-form educational content creator," livestream to TikTok outside the Supreme Court, on Jan. 10, 2025, in Washington.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Law & Courts After 50 Years, This School District Is No Longer Segregated, Court Says
A federal appeals court panel declared that the Tucson, Ariz., district was now legally desegregated a half century after it was first sued.
3 min read
Scales of justice and Gavel on wooden table and Lawyer or Judge working with agreement in Courtroom, Justice and Law concept.
Pattanaphong Khuankaew/iStock
Law & Courts Biden's Title IX Rule to Expand Protections of Trans Students Struck Down
The Title IX rule improperly expands sex-discrimination protection to gender identity, the judge ruled.
4 min read
A picture of a gavel on a target.
Bill Oxford/Getty
Law & Courts TikTok Is a Step Closer to Being Banned. What Schools Need to Know
TikTok is a big headache for educators, but banning it probably won't solve all their issues with student engagement.
3 min read
TikTok and Facebook application  on screen Apple iPhone XR
iStock Editorial/Getty