Thursday, March 10, 2016
Why Provision #4 Should Be Declared Constitutional
My name is Mira Hu, and I'm a student in Mr. Paccone's 5th period Government class. In preparation for a practice mock hearing, I wrote up the following detailing my arguments as the attorney for the respondent.
Provision #4 of the Titanville Unified School District should be declared constitutional and thereby Sikh’s should to be told directed that they are not allowed to bring a metal bladed kirpan to school for three different reasons:
First, Sikh’s should not be allowed to bring a metal bladed kirpan to school because a kirpan is a knife and therefore a potential weapon. The presence of a weapon, even if it is not used, creates an atmosphere of tension and hostility. Even if there is no intent to harm, the possibility of harm is present. For example in this case where the kirpan was found through a brief tussle with other students, the kirpan could have injured a student when it fell. If other student’s right to life is threatened by another’s right to free exercise, the free exercise clause is negated.
Another reason why Sikh’s should not be allowed to bring a metal bladed kirpan to school is because the school has a zero-tolerance policy against knives. The policy against kirpans is not going against only kirpans; it applies to all knives. If the school district allows kirpans onto the campus, the school district will control and order within the school because if kirpans are allowed, other students may want to be allowed to carry switchblades or other types of knives onto campus.
Lastly, Sikh’s should not be allowed to bring a metal bladed kirpan to school because the school district has already provided an alternative solution to the problem. The school district already had a policy involving kirpans that was approved by parents, teachers, and various scholars of Sikhism. This is a policy that the parents and the child knew about and presumably signed off on, signaling that they agreed to abide by the policy. If they felt that the policy was unconstitutional, they should have protested it from the beginning.