Pubdate: Tue, 18 Nov 2008
Source: Whidbey News-Times (WA)
Copyright: 2008 Whidbey News Times
Contact:  http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2099
Author: Liz Burlingame
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)

TO PROTEST, OR NOT?

A  group of 20 students held protests signs to passing traffic at the
intersection of Whidbey Avenue and Oak Harbor Street, under the
bruise-colored clouds of Thursday afternoon. Their signs were scrawled
with "Free Speech" and the sign on the building behind them read "Oak
Harbor School District Office."

"This office is the dead-center of the district. What better way to
send a message," student Dustin Gehring said.

Students assembled at this intersection for three days, and argued
their free speech rights had been violated by Oak Harbor High School
staff.

The previous Friday, five student protesters were arrested at the
school for disrupting classes and interfering with school
administration. The staff shut down a silent protest that occurred the
same day.

Mike Zuercher, father of silent protesters Rachel and Billy Hardin,
drafted a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union, describing the
case. He wrote that the initial protest was to "bring back" a student
who was expelled for suspicion of a marijuana crime. And he said some
parents were "outraged by the school's lack of tolerance to the
democratic process."

After reviewing the letter, the ACLU requested more details. A
spokesperson for the organization said they are contacted by about
5,000 people a year, and not every case is investigated.

"They want me to send more information about the restrictions on free
speech," Zuercher said.

At Thursday's protest, Gehring alleged that administrators threatened
to expel students for wearing T-shirts and other clothing which
protested their classmates' expulsion. Their leaflets and flyers were
taken away by Dean Linda Otruba, an act which Gehring described as an
abuse of power.

"She took it too far in our view," Gehring said. "And if no one stands
up now, who will in the future?"

Later in the day, Principal Dwight Lundstrom returned the flyers to
the students because he felt it was a protected activity,
Superintendent Rick Schulte said.

While the discipline issue was protected by the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act - a reason Lundstrom said third-parties
shouldn't be involved - there is no clear policy for protests.
However, there are a few pertinent Supreme Court cases, Schulte said.

The 1960's Tinker vs. Des Moines case dealt with students wearing
black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War, but they were banned by
the high school. The Supreme Court ruled they were protected by the
free speech clause because the students were "quiet and passive."

"If you look at the decision, they were allowed to wear arm bands
because there was no disruption. That meant the school had complete
authority to control any behavior that disrupted the environment,"
Schulte said. "So while the Tinker case defended freedom of speech, it
gave the district control over anything they deemed
disorderly."

In the more recent, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case, in which a
student in Alaska unveiled the sign on a public sidewalk, free speech
rights became even more limited.

The Supreme Court ruled the school district has authority to
discipline students for advocating drug use at school.

Based on the cases, Schulte said administrators were acting within the
rights outlined by the courts when dealing with the arrested students.

"The students were flagrantly disruptive, and secondly, it was viewed
as defending drug use or drug users," he said.

When addressing the silent protesters, Zuercher said the school
overstepped their boundaries.

"The school called all of the kids into the office and gave them the
choice of taking off the shirts or be suspended for the day with the
justification that wearing the shirts was a disruption of the
educational process," Zuercher wrote in his letter to the ACLU. "If
the kids stated that they would not, parents were called and told that
their kids were interfering in a narcotic disciplinary action, and
that the kids did not know all of the information and that the
disciplinary action was none of the kids' business, to gain parent
support in making the kids take off their shirts."

Zuercher is beginning a civil rights group with parents to support the
students' peaceful protests. He said he believes the district cares
about this issue, but there is a difference of opinion.

"We're not about getting back at the district, it's about free speech
and there needs to be a community decision," he said.

People have an opportunity to learn from this, Schulte said, and the
district takes the First Amendment very seriously.

"We have a high interest in protecting the First Amendment and we have
a high interest in protecting education. I think there's an
opportunity for both to co-exist," Schulte said. "I would hope that
students might learn to exercise their rights and be
respectful."

The issue spawned a free speech debate on the Whidbey News-Times Web
site under the story "Students demand free speech."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake