News Story 2

School administrators and the American Civil Liberties Union will meet at a disciplinary
hearing tomorrow to discuss sophomore Stacy Carol’s potential transfer from In-School Suspension
to alternative school for violating district dress code.
“I don’t understand why the district won’t drop this,” Carol said. “I have never been
suspended. In fact, I have never had a referral. I am a straight-A student. I just want to get back to
class.”
The dress code states that facial piercings are prohibited anywhere else on the body besides
ears for female students. Two weeks ago, Carol was first suspended for three days after refusing to
remove her lip-piercing jewelry. Along with her mother, Carol protested this and claimed it was a
violation of her rights. She went on to say that the lip-piercing jewelry was a form of expression in
her religion, the Church of Body Modification: an interfaith church that experience the divine
through practicing ancient and modern body modification rites.
“I was grateful when the ACLU agreed to help us,” Carol’s mother, Lareina Carol said. “The
piercing is part of Stacy’s religion. My daughter wants to go to class, but she doesn’t want her First
Amendment rights trampled. She wants to stand up for herself and for that, I am proud.”
Although the two have mutual feelings that the punishment was unjust, superintendent
Parker Gordon defended the disciplinary actions. Gordon, together with the district, designed a
dress code plan that they decided would be appropriate, based on input from students, faculty and
community members. Facial jewelry was one of the accessories that was excluded from the plan.
“We have a dress code to have order and discipline in our schools,” Gordon said. “We want
our students to understand expectations in dress. Employers have dress codes. We are modeling
the business world with our expectations.”
Some disagreed with the claims along with Gordon. One of those people included was
constitutional lawyer Jett Ramirez who decided to comment on the matter by explaining what the
First Amendment really meant.
“Most Americans would be surprised to learn just how little protection the First
Amendment provides for religious-freedom claims under current law,” Ramirez said. “The U.S.
Supreme Court seriously weakened the reach of the free-exercise clause in 1900 by ruling that
government no longer must show a ‘compelling state interest’ before denying religious exemption
to an otherwise neutral, generally applicable law.”
Besides prohibiting facial jewelry, the dress code also prohibits headwear and hats. One
particular Muslim hijabi junior who was an exception to the dress code, spoke out when the
comparison of religious wear between the Church of Body Modification and Islam and its relation to
the dress code became a topic of discussion.
“I don’t think you can compare the Muslim religion to the Church of Body Modification,”
junior Amina Shakuri said. “There are more than a billion Muslims worldwide. Our beliefs are
documented. I don’t have a problem with Stacy’s lip piercing, but comparing her lip piercing to my
hijab is absurd.”
While disagreements were going around, ACLU lawyer Sonia Stephens justified Stacy’s case.
She further went on to suggest some advice for the school district.
 “It is in the best interest of the school district to allow her a religious exemption from the
dress code,” Stephens said. “The district doesn’t have much to stand on since it already has two
religious exemptions on file. It will be hard pressed to defend that in court.”

Breakdown

Who:​ Stacy Carol

What: ​Debating on removing Carol to alternative school until she removes the lip jewelry

When: ​Tomorrow, April 10

Where: ​Disciplinary hearing

Why: ​The facial jewelry violates the Leaguetown ISD dress code

How: ​American Civil Liberties Union and Carol vs. School