Why did the issue of a HS student showing off for the TV cameras make it all the way to the Supreme court? And why was the margin of defeat for this case so small?
Yes, students should have some rights, but speech advocating drug use, speech mouthing off to their teachers, and abusive language of all sorts should NOT be protected speech in any public high school. For that matter, “good” speech at the wrong time shouldn’t be permitted either. Who runs these places, anyway?
I’m with Justice Thomas on this one: “In light of the history of American public education,” Justice Thomas said, “it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment ‘freedom of speech’ encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools.”
I’m a bit more sympathetic with the high schooler in England who has gone to court because she wouldn’t remove her purity ring. I see the school’s point that the ring is not a part of dress code, but it does appear to have religious significance, and religious symbols are allowed to be worn with the school uniform. One big difference I see in these two cases involving the rights of teenagers is that in the former case the freedom is generally disruptive to a learning environment while the latter isn’t. Schools have a purpose, and that purpose isn’t so students can exercise their constitutional rights. It is so they can learn.
The student wasn’t even on school property when he displayed the banner. How can we possibly justify abrogating his rights just because he is a high school student, when that speech isn’t even at school?
What gauls me most is that this Court ruling depends on the content of the message. Advocating drug use is unacceptable speech, while advocating political or social change is acceptable. That’s arbitrary. It’s dangerous to our concept of liberty, because now we’ve decided to outlaw certain kinds of speech based on nothing but our own laws. Cannabis is illegal, so “Bong hits 4 Jesus” is not protected speech. But there’s a sizable group of Americans who think cannabis prohibition should be ended. What if a high school student is among those, and holds up a sign saying “End Marijuana Prohibition.” That’s a social and political message. Will it also be banned because it promotes drug use?
Gah. I could have respected the ruling if it wasn’t based on the content of the speech. If the student’s banner was disruptive at a school-sponsored event, then OK, that can be dealt with. But tying the punishment to the content of his speech is wrong. I’m not sure I like this Supreme Court.
The incident did not occur on school property, but it was at a school-sponsored event. As I understand it, the kids were on a field trip to watch the Olympic torch go by.
Kudos, SCOTUS. Bush at least did one thing right. A school should have the right to discriminate between types of speech. If a school chooses to allow a “Bong Hits” shirt, that’s fine. But they should also have the opportunity to ban it as well. On a side note, I can’t wait for Theodore Dalrymple’s new book, “In Praise of Prejudice.” I expect he will address similar issues like free speech, etc. Best writer of our time, bar none. Steyn may be the wittiest, but no one has the meat or depth on such a wide variety of subjects as Dalrymple.
Darius, should a public school have the right to censor political speech?
Yes, a school should have the right to censor any form of speech, as long as it doesn’t get into some other area, such as freedom of religion (someone should be able to pray aloud as long as it isn’t an interruption). Problem is, in our “everything goes” and “tolerance is god” society, people think that anything in the public realm has to be allowed as long as it isn’t hurting someone else. Why can’t a school make the judgment call that certain shirts are bad? For example, two girls in a Minnesota high school last year wore shirts that read “I (heart) my vagina”. Going in, they had been warned not to wear the shirts by school administrators. So when they ignored the warning, they were expelled. There is such a thing as a level of decorum that schools should be allowed to live up to. By today’s morally relativistic culture, those adolescent shirts are as equally valid as a “Be nice to your neighbor” shirt.
“Yes, a school should have the right to censor any form of speech, as long as it doesn’t get into some other area, such as freedom of religion”
Or, say, freedom of speech, which is also guaranteed by the Constitution? Why do we arbitrarily decide that freedom of religion should be protected in schools, but freedom of speech should not?
And your example of the shirts isn’t on target. The Supreme Court said that high school students have free speech rights regarding political and social issues, but not other subjects. The t-shirt example fits into neither of those categories, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. I’m surprised and disappointed that you would go so much further than the Supreme Court, and deny students the right to speak out about politics or social issues. We should be encouraging that level of civic engagement in our young people, not relentlessly punishing it.
My point, Jew, isn’t that high schoolers shouldn’t have any rights, but that teachers and school administrators ought to be able to trump those “rights” with previous-established school rules. The point of the rules is to provide a decent learning environment for everyone. What good is a school if the children are in charge? Should we allow Suzie to stand up in the corner of calculus class and preach a sermon instead of doing her math problems? No, her rights to freedom of speech and religion are trumped by the normal school rules.
I agree that we should encourage our young people to be thoughtful of what civic engagement would be effective and appropriate, but let’s face it–the interests of most teenagers are pretty selfish and immature. That’s why we give them more rights when they turn 18 (or 21). The idea is they are socialized and civilized enough by then to not abuse their freedoms to the harm of others. (Of course, it doesn’t always work that way, but you get my idea.)
“Should we allow Suzie to stand up in the corner of calculus class and preach a sermon instead of doing her math problems?”
No, that’s disruptive. The problem with this Supreme Court ruling is that the Court said it would have been OK if the student’s sign was about politics, but since it’s not, the school can squelch it. I’m all in favor of punishing disruptive behavior. In the case regarding the student with the sign, it probably was disruptive. But I’m still appalled and frightened that the Court thinks it can decide which kinds of speech are acceptable. The whole point of free speech is that we don’t want the government making that determination.
“the interests of most teenagers are pretty selfish and immature.”
True. But not all. I went to high school with one student who had spent a summer working for Martin Frost, a local Congressman. We shouldn’t discriminate based on youth.
I agree with your point Jew, the court should just have said that schools have the right to prevent disruptive behavior.
Two questions:
Was the speech “on s school grounds”? and
Was the student “under school supervision” at the time of the incident?
If the student was not on school grounds or under school supervision at the time of the incident, then had no jurisdiction here. The fact that I happen to attend your school does NOT give you the right to control my behavior when I am not at school or participating in a school event.
If the behavior is “disruptive”, either call the police to take care of the illegal disruption, or have the event on your own property. You do not have the right to take revenge on someone doing something legal on public (non-school) property. Suspending a student for 10 days for HOLDING A BANNER is stupid. I don’t care if the banner say’s “Hi Mom” or “I like to have sex with goats”. You should ask someone with an offensive banner to leave, you don’t put them two weeks behind in their classes. This is just stupid.
thainamu, exactly. More importantly, schools should indiscriminately adhere to their rules. Instead, you get a girl who mentions Jesus in graduation speech denied her diploma while kids can get away with awful things with no punishment (plenty of examples, too tired to list them). What schools need is one, the ability to make kids to live up to a standard instead of the lowest common denominator; and two, to apply those rules evenly.
I haven’t read the court decision in this case for lack of time, so Jew, if what you say is correct (that they said free speech applies to some subjects and not others), then I would be a little wary. But considering that the court has really been getting their decisions right recently, and that the ones who dissented were Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg (the who’s who of moral and constitutional foolishness), plus David Souter, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, just this week they correctly ruled that high schools can’t use race as a basis for assigning students to districts and it was the conservative judges who made up the majority. Not to say that they don’t screw up sometimes, but when you have all 4 and the moderate on one side and all three ultra-libs on the other, it tells ya something. Lots of 5-4 decisions, but for the first time in decades, they are finally going the right way. Roe V. Wade, you’re next. You have to love the verbal jabs that the left and right judges are throwing at each other these days… fun times
“Roe V. Wade, you’re next.”
Not likely.
Atanamis said: “Two questions:
Was the speech “on s school grounds”? and
Was the student “under school supervision” at the time of the incident?”
Atanamis, as I already said, it was a school-sponsored event and thus was under school supervision at the time.
The teacher did the right thing–confiscated the sign and then suspended the student for 10 days. How it went from there to the Supreme Court, I can hardly imagine.
Ok, having read the SCOTUS decision regarding Bongs Hits 4 Jesus, here are my thoughts:
1. Regarding jurisdiction, the school had the right to suspend the student as he put up the banner at a school function which was expressly forbidden, even if it was off school property. Doesn’t matter where he does it, if a football team travels to some other town for a game and a player drinks a beer after the game, he still is punished even though he’s not on his school’s grounds.
2. Regarding interpretation of the t-shirt, the court rightly agrees that the shirt (while perhaps intended merely as a joke) could have been read as an endorsement/promotion of drug use, which is an illegal activity and banned by the school. Had the banner read “Serial Killers 4 Jesus,” it would have been more disgusting, but it also would have “promoted” (granted, such a slogan would have been obviously a joke) an illegal activity.
3. Regarding the issue that “galls” Jew - the apparent arbitrariness of ruling that pro-drug speech is bad but political or social change speech is good - I side with the Court on this one and say that Judge Roberts clearly shows that it is not arbitrary. Promoting the changing of our laws or certain political issues is one thing, promoting illegal behavior is quite another.
On a side note, read Judge Thomas’ concurring opinion… he gives a great history of how the law and the public school system have worked in the past regarding free speech. Not until the 70’s (the Tinker case) did the Court give such far-reaching freedoms to the students. As Thomas quotes from Judge Black and his dissenting opinion at the time, “[T]axpayers send children
to school on the premise that at their age they need to
learn, not teach.”
“How it went from there to the Supreme Court, I can hardly imagine.”
Probably because a ten day suspension for displaying a sign is not commensurate with the offense. I started a small fire on campus when I was in high school, and didn’t even get reprimanded. In my defense, the student handbook didn’t say not to start fires. That was a private school, though.
“Promoting the changing of our laws or certain political issues is one thing, promoting illegal behavior is quite another.”
I disagree. Sometimes civil disobedience is the best tool for political change, and that tool shouldn’t be denied someone just because he’s a high school student. A student should be able show support for a civil disobedience movement without fear of undue reprisal.
Of course if the student participates in the civil disobedience, then he expects and perhaps even desires to suffer the consquences of breaking the law.
Jew, the question at hand was not if the punishment fit the crime, but rather, if the principal could punish at all.
The Court has always ruled that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” For example, if such speech as the “civil disobedience” causes a disruption at school, the school has every right to (figuratively) kick those kids in the butt. However, if the kids wear a t-shirt saying “Stop the Iraq War,” for the last 30 years, the Court has ruled that it is protected political speech. One disrupts, one does not.
Jew, there were probably lots of things that went on at that school that wouldn’t be tolerated elsewhere.
I will go on record as saying that high school teachers and administrators should have a certain amount of latitude in interpreting school rules. In general, I’m in favor of pretty strict rules, but common sense tells us that you should look at the entire situation, see if there are mitigating circumstances, and make an even judgment.
In this case, the teacher knew what “bong hits” were, even if the kid claims he didn’t. I know our local HS has rules against speech that promotes drug use. (Yet another reason why I favor uniforms.)
Well sure, I understand disruption. That should never be tolerated in school. Students need to learn, after all. School is (mostly) about academic instruction.
I’ll need to read the whole ruling before I comment much more. My understanding so far is that this latest ruling changes the test from “Is the speech disruptive?” to “Is the speech about politics or social change?” I don’t object to suspending a student for holding up a sign and being disruptive. I have a problem when that punishment is partly dependent upon whether that sign has a political slogan or a non-political slogan. But I’ll go back and read the whole ruling.
-My understanding so far is that this latest ruling changes the test from “Is the speech disruptive?” to “Is the speech about politics or social change?”-
I didn’t understand that to be the case, but a combination of the two. Justice Roberts mentions the Tinker case, where students got in trouble for wearing black armbands which symbolized the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. They didn’t cause trouble, but silently went about their school duties. Roberts said that not only was it political speech (instead of speech that promoted an illegal or destructive action), it was done so in a non-disruptive manner. Had it been disruptive, banning it would have been as appropriate as if the students had been promoting the use of cocaine.
Darius, with the Tinker case the students WERE indeed promoting illegal action. Part of the protest to the Vietnam War and the draft included burning draft cards, which was an illegal action. Wearing of the armbands was expressing solidarity with those that burned draft cards. Therefore, this sign is more in line with the Tinker case since both show solidarity with those who commit illegal actions.
Perhaps that was the case, but the Court at that time (and today) did not understand it as such. Probably because it was so extremely subtle an expression of civil disobedience (or such a minor tangent) that the Court decided that it would most likely not be interpreted that way. But in this case, “Bong Hits” is pretty clear, especially to the teenage crowd. It’s all about likely interpretation, or the power of words, if you will. Then again, as Justice Thomas stated in his concurring opinion, he would like to get rid of the Tinker precedent altogether.
I read through the Tinker decision… only once is the issue of draft card burning mentioned, and it is not in direct relation to the arm bands. Furthermore, I did a quick Google search and read a few pages that mention both the card burning and armbands and never are the two linked. So, I draw the conclusion that wearing black armbands was merely another form of protesting the war, albeit in a much more peaceful manner. Some tore up draft cards, some wore armbands, some marched in the streets, etc. All with the same general goal, but not necessarily approving of the other methods. “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” has only one interpretation available; the obviously humorous intent aside.
Well, granted that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” is a non-sequitor, so it’s hard to really call it a “protest”. Still, free speech is free speech, regardless of whether it is sensical or not. I think the major issue here is whether the free speech caused a disruption worthy of the punishment. Promoting an illegal activity is different from doing the illegal activity. Promotion is only a problem if it causes disruption. I admit, I haven’t read fully the nature of “disruption” in this case, so I can’t comment. Still, school policy cannot block a constitutional right, which is where I stand on this. I support his right to post hold non-sensical cannibis banners in the same vein as I would if the sign said “Jesus says to kill faggots”. It is only a problem if the disruption is considered significant.
Out of curiosity, do you have a link to Justice Thomas’s comments? I really am interested WHY he wants to get rid of the Tinker precedent.
Here it is. It begins on page 19.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
It appears (I skipped through some of his opinion for the sake of time) that he would like to return to the time (pre-1970’s, so not that long ago) when the schools had almost complete freedom to discipline and direct the children as they saw fit. Basically, teachers would return to serving as surrogate parents.
Furthermore, Thomas has rightly noticed how Tinker is consistently set aside on some cases and followed on others. In other words, it is a weak decision since the Court doesn’t reverse it while continually stepping back from its radical precedent.
Thanks for the link, sir!
I see what you mean, and I do understand his point on private versus public schooling in the colonial days. My problem is that he argues about IN public schools. It would seem that this ruling would affect school SANCTIONED trips as well? That seems to me to be a far stretch. Since he was not on public school property, merely under school sanction, does that mean public school officials have controls over free speech outside of the authority of the classroom? That seems to be a difficult precedent to follow, in my opinion.
While I do understand that free speech itself has limits (no yelling fire in a crowded movie house, as the old saying goes), I’ve not read that the disturbance was on a level that allows prohibition. I may be wrong, but I haven’t read that anywhere.
The surrogate parent thing is another debate all together.
oh yes, there are about 4 different debates to be had with this subject. As for this kid, he was across the street from the school property and was at a school function with other students and faculty and was directing his sign towards the school property. Very hard for him to convince us that he wasn’t under the school’s jurisdiction. Plus, as was also likely the case with my Christian college when they forbid the use of alcoholic beverages even when off-campus and not with any other fellow students, I think a school (public or private) should have some leeway to require their students to represent their school in a proper fashion, especially when they are at an event that would most likely be interpreted as a school-sponsored function by an outsider, like the parade and banner in question were.
As for the disruptive nature of the sign… correct, the banner probably posed no immediate problems for the school. However, promoting an illegal behavior such as drug use could in theory lead other students to use drugs, which is not in the school’s (nor the public’s, for that matter) interest. Secondly, if a student can put up that sign in willful disobedience of the school admin, it erodes the authority of the teachers and staff. So the banner might not cause any disruptive harm in that exact moment, but it plants seeds in students’ minds that are not easily erased.