Pubdate: Thu, 12 Jul 2007
Source: Muse, The (CN NF Edu)
Copyright: 2007 The Muse
Contact:  http://www.mun.ca/muse/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2656
Author: Alex Bill
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

FREEDOM MEANS BONG HITS 4 JESUS

Free speech is considered sacred in most universities. The right to 
discuss or advocate the mundane, the practical, or the fantastical is 
inherent in establishments of higher learning, though practiced to 
varying degrees. However, if such rights were limited in grade 
school, would we be so quick to enact them at university?

That question deserves serious thought in both the U.S. and Canada, 
as issues of free speech regarding illegal drug use have recently 
caused a stir in the media.

The U.S. Supreme court recently ruled on the case of Joseph 
Frederick, a young man who as a high-school student unfurled a 4.5 
metre banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" when the Olympic torch for 
the Salt Lake City games went through Juneau, Alaska. He was 
suspended from school, but he brought the case to court.

The argument of prosecution lawyer Kenneth Starr and the Bush 
administration boiled down to the necessity of schools to protect 
their "educational mission." The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that 
a school administrator may restrict students' speech when it is 
"reasonably viewed" to be promoting illegal drug use.

The issue here is not the incident, but the precedent. The case could 
have been thrown out on the grounds that Frederick could not legally 
pursue a cash settlement in damages, as he was attempting to. 
Instead, the court set a new standard for school administrators to 
consider when students discuss the necessity of drug laws, or the 
medical costs and benefits of illegal drugs.

Conservative pariah Antonin Scalia claimed that Frederick was 
disruptive and deserved punishment because he was "undermining what 
the school is trying to teach."

When did the latent functions of schools become manifest? I don't 
recall hearing that it was the responsibility of schools to teach 
children to bow in acceptance of the rules and laws of man. A 
school's "educational mission" should consist of little more than 
properly teaching children the fundamentals of math, science, 
history, etc. Moral guidance is not equitable with moral lawmaking, 
and high schools should know it.

An example of such repressiveness recently occurred in Wawota, 
Saskatchewan. Kieran King, 15, had done some research into the 
dangers of marijuana relative to alcohol and tobacco, and concluded 
that marijuana was the least dangerous of the three. For sharing his 
findings, however, the school principal called home to express 
concern, and accused the boy of advocating, or perhaps selling, marijuana.

King planned a walkout to protest his right to free speech, along 
with some of his friends. This is where the school became tyrannical, 
attempting to bar the doors before the students could escape, and 
then locking the school and calling in the RCMP once the students were outside.

The actions of the Wawota school principal were out of line, and she 
has come under a fair deal of criticism since. But the incident 
provides some foreshadowing to the consequences that the U.S. court 
ruling could bring.

Ignoring, for the moment, the problems of a partisan-elected court, 
the ruling strikes a nerve for anyone with a concern for free speech. 
I'm no expert in constitutional rights -- I await confirmation or 
rebuttal from someone who is -- but aren't we allowed to debate the 
necessity or appropriateness of laws and regulations?

Advocating certain actions is often inherent in much of that debate, 
but as long as students aren't breaking the laws themselves, or 
assisting anyone else who might, they shouldn't face punishment for 
their opinions.

The erosion of free speech doesn't just affect secular liberals. Many 
Christian evangelicals were surprisingly on the side of Frederick for 
this case, because they saw the approaching precedent as a serious 
threat to the ability of Christian students to espouse anti-gay or 
anti-abortion messages in school.

It's easy to feel secure in ivory towers or shanty soapboxes at 
universities, but as evidence from other countries has often shown, 
the expansion of free speech at universities are often just stilts 
for the free speech rights of the whole society. Fight for the 
freedom of others before you're the only one left who can fight for yourself.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom