9486 in the collection
The Scariest Day of My Life
Gary Stager
Today, the United States Supreme Court granted public school administrators unchecked power to control student speech and expression, whether they are in school or not.
How will you wield the raw power previously reserved for despots?
The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
In Morse v. Frederick a high school student, Joseph Frederick, displayed a banner displaying a nonsensical message he once saw on a snowboard as the 2002 Olympic torch passed through his town. The student said that he unfurled the banner to to proclaim his rights to free speech in public.
His school principal, Deborah Morse, disagreed. She ran across the street, tore down the banner and suspended Frederick from school. The infraction? Holding up a banner at a non-school event not held on school property or during the school day. Frederick sued, claiming that his civil rights had been violated and won all the way up through the appeals process until today.
Based on my following of the case, not one expert for the defense or prosecution was able to produce the meaning of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." However, the principal (and apparently Chief Justice Roberts) could divine the secret message like when you play a Beatles record backwards.
According to the New York Times...
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
"Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
So, now cryptic speech is illegal? That would make the actions of most presidential candidates a crime. Oh yeah, but they don't go to school. Apparently, you the most fundamental American liberty, the First Amendment need not be afforded to students.
Here is the scariest part of this case. The standard for suspending the most basic of human rights is that a school official determines that the act or message may interfere with the educational mission of the school.
What is the school's "educational mission." Why does it deserve special protection?
Can a student disagree in a social studies class without fear of suspension? Political or religious views could be considered disruptive.
Can a student's education rights be terminated for telling a joke? Should social studies teachers debate Supreme Court cases in class? May a student oppose standardized testing or write a critical review of the school play? Is a student allowed to cry when she receives word that a parent has been killed in Iraq? Is that disruptive?
Is a student allowed to email her friend that she doesn't like her teacher? Can she write a letter to the newspaper complaining that the principal is corrupt, a bully or worse? Are there any whistleblower protections for students?
What if a parent opposes standardized testing or raises concerns during a parent teacher conference? Can the school take legal action against their child?
How is a child going to develop moral behavior if he/she never gets to make a decision without fear of enormous sanctions? How does one become a productive citizen when educated in a repressive undemocratic environment?
I hope that the utopians of the Web 2.0/School 2.0 community raises their voices against this decision. The timing of this ruling coincides with the annual National Educational Computing Conference in which more than 10,000 educators talk about the role computers and communications technology may play in the intellectual development of their students.
Does today's ruling make Web use as dangerous for American students as for those in Tiananmen Square? Are American school principals now expected to drive the virtual tanks through cyberspace?
Hey, maybe the kid who displayed the banner is a jerk. How would you describe a school principal so on edge that she views her role as a cross between Robocop and Supernanny?
Do you really want the power just granted to you by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
I sure hope you wield your great authority judiciously.
— Gary Stager
The Pulse: Education's Place for Debate
2007-06-25
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
