Newsletter

April 2007

Editorial – Students’ Right To Free Speech

The
Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that has attracted attention
mainly because of its eccentric story line: An Alaska student was suspended from
high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while
the Olympic torch passed by. But the case raises important issues of freedom of
expression and student censorship that go far beyond the words on that banner.
The court should affirm the appeals court’s well-reasoned decision that when the
school punished the student it violated his First Amendment rights.

Joseph Frederick and his fellow students were allowed to leave the grounds of
Juneau-Douglas High School so they could watch the Olympic torch pass nearby.
When the cameras began to roll, he unfurled his banner, which he says was meant
to be funny and get him on television. The principal took it from him, and
suspended him for 10 days.

Mr.
Frederick says the suspension violated his rights. The school board insists the
principal had the right to confiscate the banner and punish the student
because the language undermined its teachings about the dangers of illegal
drugs. The San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit ruled for Mr. Frederick, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des
Moines Independent Community School District, which held that students have the
right to free speech, which can be suppressed only when the speech disrupts
school activities.

The
Bush administration joined the school district in arguing that schools have
broad authority to limit talk about drugs because of the importance of keeping
drugs away from young people. But if schools can limit speech on any subject
deemed to be important, students could soon be punished for talking about the
war on terror or the war in Iraq because the government also considers those
subjects important.

Some school administrators would no doubt use their power to clamp down on
conservative speech while others would clamp down on liberal speech. A school
that values diversity could punish students who criticize affirmative action,
while a more conservative school could ban students from taking outspoken
positions about global warming. Religious groups have joined civil libertarians
in backing Mr. Frederick because they fear schools will punish students who talk
about their religious beliefs.

If
the Supreme Court wants to dodge the free-speech-in-school issues, it could rule
that the off-campus Olympic torch event was not a formal school activity — and
that the principal had no right to limit anyone’s free speech there. That would
not harm students’ free speech rights, but it would also do little to affirm
them. The court should go further, and rule that Mr. Frederick’s rights were
infringed. Students do not have the right to interfere substantially with school
activities, but Mr. Frederick did not do that. The court should use this case to
reaffirm Tinker’s famous pronouncement that students do not shed their right to
free speech “at the schoolhouse gate.”

New York Times, March 20, 2007.