Posted on 06/04/2013 11:44:25 AM PDT by rickmichaels
An Alabama teenager was denied her high school diploma and fined $1,000 for wearing a feather on her graduation cap to celebrate her Native American heritage.
Escambia Academy High School in Atmore, Ala., makes its students and staff sign a pre-graduation contract agreeing not to wear "extraneous items during graduation exercises unless approved by the administration."
Chelsey Ramer, 17, tried in vain to get approval to attach an eagle's feather to her graduation cap as a symbol of her Native culture.
"They told me that if I wore it that they would pull me off the field," Ramer, a member of the Poarch Creek Band, told NBC affiliate Local 15.
But Ramer wore it anyway and refused to sign the dress-code contract.
The school wouldn't give Ramer her diploma. She now has to fork over $1,000 to get it.
The teen, however, regrets nothing.
"It was worth it. It means a lot to me," Ramer said.
This is one of those cases where it is hard to believe that this is a conservative forum - so many are openly advocating for a private business to be sued for abiding by the policies they have established for their business. I feel like I have been transported to DU or something...
So you support a $1000 fine for wearing a feather in her hair?
Both the rule and the penalty are arbitrary and capricious. As such they violate the Constitution of the United States.
Do you think that a 17 year old should be fined $1000 and denied a diploma she EARNED, for breaking an unconstitutional arbitrary rule?
I'm with her 100% on this one. Too many public institutions have arbitrary rules and regulations designed to squelch Liberty. They wanted everyone to be the same. They wanted to promote the conformity which is the method that they mold sheep to follow rules even when the rules are stupid and arbitary. This student chose to be a non-conformist in a very subtle way which did not infringe upon the Liberty of anyone else. She was not disturbing the peace or creating a nuisance. She was just wearing a feather.
But she upset the apple cart of the conformist bureaucrats. For that she must be punished.
Based upon the article, she knew the rules, she *didn’t* sign the form, she broke the rules...
I don’t know which is worse, the red neck crowd or the urban crowd. Seems like each try and outdo the other on how long and loud they can cheer, wistle, blow horns etc for their person. They drown out at least the next two or three names.
Well, your theology is as weak as your arguments. And if you are advocating that the student sue the school, then YOU are in direct contradiction with Scripture.
A private school is no more private than a grocery store. Both advertise and charge for their product.
In one sense, you are correct - since neither the grocery store nor the Christian school are owned by the government, they are both private businesses. I don't know where you get the idea that advertising and charging for their services have anything to do with whether they are a public or private business.
I think you are confusing this with a "public accommodation", particularly dealing with civil rights laws. However, this is not a civil rights case. There was no discrimination based on race, sex or religion - the rule applied equally to all students. Her parents chose to send her to a private school; they signed a contract which included certain requirements on the student's part, and specified certain consequences for breaching the contract. The contract was breached by the student's breaking the rule in question, and the consequences have been applied. If the parents objected to the rules or the consequences, they could have sent their daughter to a public school (where she could have "graduated" illiterate, pregnant and addicted to drugs).
Yes Indeed, I feel that way too. Are we sure the DU’ers aren’t having a troll day here at Freerepublic?
It must be something in the air today as there are freepers on another thread openly advocating for HHS Kathleen Sebelius to play God on the organ transplant lists
“...but I think most parents who would want to send their kids to a Christian school would consider this GOOD publicity for the school.”
You are probably right about that...
What about that stupid borough pride nonsense?
“Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make it arbitrary.”
There’s an awful lot of ‘arbitrary’ going on in this country anymore. People have to make their stands where they can.
Mine is at Best Buy or Fry’s. When I make a purchase then the ownership of the items I buy transfer to me at the point of purchase. That’s the law.
Thus when I go to leave those stores I refuse to submit to a search of my bags. I’ll ask the person at the door if they have any reason to think that I was shoplifting and when they say ‘no’ I tell them to have a nice day and I walk out.
Their rule is arbitrary and I refuse to submit to it. Of course, they’re welcome to ban me from their store. So far they’ve never mentioned the idea. When or if they do I won’t be back.
If that was the consequence that was specified by the rule she broke, and she broke the rule anyway, yes.
Both the rule and the penalty are arbitrary and capricious. As such they violate the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry the rule is neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Capricious: Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.
Now, let's look at what the student handbook says about the dress code for graduation:
"Graduation dress is traditional cap and gown. Escambia Academy students and staff shall not wear extraneous items during graduation exercises unless approved by the administration of Escambia Academy. The only acceptable additional items are those honoring Valedictorian, Salutatorian, Beta Club members, and senior presidents of school sponsored organizations. Any other robes, shawls, collars, cords, or articles of any kind will not be worn over, or on, gowns and mortar boards during graduation exercises. Students wearing such articles will not be permitted to participate in graduation ceremonies.
Additionally, students may wear only one (1) tassel and only one (1)medal and one cord. Violations of this policy will result in diplomas being held until appropriate disciplinary actions are taken."
The rule was written down and agreed to by the parents, and appears to have been administered equally and fairly to all. It is therefore neither arbitrary nor capricious as a matter of law. (Just because YOU don't agree with the rule does not make it arbitrary nor capricious.)
Do you think that a 17 year old should be fined $1000 and denied a diploma she EARNED, for breaking an unconstitutional arbitrary rule?
As stated above, there is nothing unconstitutional about the rule. This is a private business, not a public agency. Even if the rule would somehow be unconstitutional if implemented by the government, it is not unconstitutional for a private business to include it in the terms of their contract.
Too many public institutions have arbitrary rules and regulations designed to squelch Liberty.
This is not a public institution.
This student chose to be a non-conformist in a very subtle way which did not infringe upon the Liberty of anyone else. She was not disturbing the peace or creating a nuisance. She was just wearing a feather.
And in doing so, broke a rule with full knowledge of the consequences.
Sounds like a Congress Critter in training.....
The gounds taht some shyster will take any case for a buck.
If you go look at the school’s web-site the student handbook stipulates the student dress-code. It is year-long, strict in nature, allows for no deviation. This was a girl who had been either: a) running afoul of the school’s rules regularly or b) abiding by school rules on a daily basis. That said, she chose on her last day at the school to resist the school’s authority that requires its students to maintain a certain standard (of dress). However, I doubt that $1000 would be the fine for a dress code violation during the school year (or at one of its awards nights, etc.). The fine is excessive. She should have to suffer whatever penalty there is for such violations, maybe a Saturday detention. Going forward, this would likely result in the inclusion of a special “stiffer” penalty for those who would choose to violate the dress code at graduation.
"While Ramer was aware that wearing the feather meant the school would withhold her diploma and transcripts and issue a fine, she decided the act was worth the punishment. She and her family intend to pay the resulting $1,000 fine, according to the Atmore Advance."
So she was fully aware of the consequences and accepted them. They are not fighting or suing. It just looks like she wants the attention. I'm not sure why this is a big issue.
Since the rule is subject to exceptions at the whim of the "administration" the enforcement of the rule can be considered arbitrary. There are no rules for the development of exceptions other than the whim of the administration.
As far as the $1000 fine, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that fines cannot be excessive and must be commensurate with the violation. A $1000 fine for wearing a feather at a graduation is clearly excessive and not rationally related to the behavior it was intended to punish.
"The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish." United States v. Bajakajian 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998)
Nice try, but no sale.
As far as the $1000 fine, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that fines cannot be excessive and must be commensurate with the violation.
If we were talking about a "fine" imposed by a government agency, you would be right. Since this is technically an amount due based on a breach of contract, it would be considered "liquidated damages". Whoever wrote the story used the term "fine" for convenience sake, but this has nothing to do with a civil fine imposed by a court. So the case you cited has no relevance to this case.
Sounds like her ethnicity matters more to her than anything she might have learned about Christ in that school.
All for a feather...
Hasn’t she read:
But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they will mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not grow weary; they shall walk, and not faint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.