First Guns

Nothing Up Our Sleeve, And Nothing In Her Pants

Another female body in the news this week is that of Savana Redding, the nineteen-year-old woman who was strip-searched by Arizona school officials at age thirteen because of a rumor she had prescription-strength ibuprofen on her. The decision focused on the flimsy evidence officials had and the relatively low danger such drugs would present if found. This evidence, they said, did not warrant the intrusive nature of the search. The court did not, however, preclude such searches on stronger evidence or more dangerous drugs. So if you start a rumor that someone has heroin in her pants, she could still be forced to let adult strangers into those pants.

And the stranger who wants into those pants is, of course, the ever-odious Clarence Thomas. The lone dissenter on the decision was able to make a creepy discussion even creepier with his opinion, saying that access to the underwear of young women is essential. From the Times:

Justice Thomas also said Thursday’s decision provided the nation’s students a court-sanctioned hiding place.

“Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments,” he wrote. “Nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announced the safest places to secrete contraband in school.”

What’s the safest place to stay away from him?

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, this case brings the gender bias of the court to the forefront. Ginsburg was forced to educate her fellow justices on just why such a humiliating search can cause lasting damage. In particular, when the case was argued in April, Justice Stephen Breyer downplayed the experience, comparing it to changing for gym class. Uh, maybe at Clarence Thomas High School, but not at any others we can think of.

It’s worth watching this clip of Ms. Redding.

When Savana says,”I didn’t know that I could say no,” and her mother recalls that her first reaction was to call the police, it is clear what a violation the search was. Ginsburg echoed this in her writing on the case, calling the search “abusive.” Savana, an honor roll student, eventually dropped out of school.

Unfortunately, although the court wrote that this search went too far based on the evidence at hand, incidents like this can still happen, because the decision upheld the doctrine of in loco parentis. This allows school officials to violate the civil rights of students in ways that cops are not allowed to, including searches with little probable cause. In loco parentis means that students in American schools do not have the right to free speech, are subject to random drug tests, and do not enjoy other rights that we as Americans love to blather about to the rest of the world. There are, for example, many high schools in this country where a student wearing a green tshirt or green armband to show support for protestors in Iran could be deemed “disruptive” and sent home, risking suspension if he or she refused to change clothes. Welcome to the land of the free!

We applaud Savana Redding for her courage and tenacity in taking this case all the way to the Supreme Court. It is too bad that even there she was forced to combat sexism and a judiciary so steeped in male experience that, if it were not for the strong clear voice of Ruth Ginsburg, might have dismissed this young woman’s experience as nothing more than a day in gym class. We’d like to shake both their hands.