Scribd
Upload
31 views2 pages

Newsprompt2-Finaldraft 2

Sophomore Stacy Carol faces a disciplinary hearing for refusing to remove a religious lip piercing, which she argues is a violation of her First Amendment rights. The school maintains its dress code is necessary for order, while legal representatives for both sides present contrasting views on religious exemptions. The case raises questions about the validity of different religious practices and their acceptance within school policies.

Uploaded by

api-297811988
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views2 pages

Newsprompt2-Finaldraft 2

Sophomore Stacy Carol faces a disciplinary hearing for refusing to remove a religious lip piercing, which she argues is a violation of her First Amendment rights. The school maintains its dress code is necessary for order, while legal representatives for both sides present contrasting views on religious exemptions. The case raises questions about the validity of different religious practices and their acceptance within school policies.

Uploaded by

api-297811988
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Nicolas Cox

Per: 4
September 16, 2015
Mr. Jones

Dressing for Disciplinary Hearings


Sophomore Stacy Carol has been in in-school suspension for nine days because she
refused to remove a religious lip piercing. The school has issued her a disciplinary hearing on
April 10 to see if she will be moved to an alternative school.
Stacy continues to practice the art of modern body modification as a way to experience
the divine. Stacy feels as if the school is violating her First Amendment right to exercise religion.
Our spirituality comes from what we choose to do with ourselves, Carol said. Through
body modification, we can change how we see ourselves and the world around us.
Superintendent Parker Gordon feels as if there is no violation of the First Amendment
because when the dress code was created in 2009 input was received from students and faculty
to help create the dress code appropriate for their district.
We have a dress code to have order and discipline in our schools, Gordon said.
Imagine what our school would be like if we allowed students to wear whatever they liked.
Constitutional lawyer Jett Ramirez is defending the school during the disciplinary
hearing. He believes the court will see the absurdity in this and that the school should hold its
ground in this case.
Just because a few people get together and call themselves a church doesnt mean
they are a church in the eyes of the law, Ramirez said. Heck, in Australia, there is a movement
for a Jedi church. Does that mean we have to allow all teenage boys to wear Jedi Knight robes
and carry light sabers to school?

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Sonia Stephens has agreed to defend Stacy at
her disciplinary hearing, and she said because the school allows two Muslim students to wear
religious Hijabs, the school district should give Stacy an exemption from dress code.
Stacy has a solid case, Stephens said. It is in the best interest of the school to allow
her a religious exemption from the dress [Link] district doesnt have much to stand since it
already has two religious exemptions on file.
Junior Amina Shakuri was one of the students that has been given an exemption to
dress code and had feels as if comparing Stacys lip piercing to her hijab is wrong.
I dont think you can compare the Muslim religion to the Church of Body Modification,
Shakuri said. We have a rich and long history. Our beliefs are documented.

You might also like