Pubdate: Wed, 10 Sep 2008
Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette (WI)
Copyright: 2008 Green Bay Press-Gazette
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/NWYAfkkj
Website: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/879
Author: Gene Policinski
Note: Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the 
First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

COMMON SENSE, GOOD LAW PREVAIL IN STUDENT-SPEECH DISPUTE

School administrators can gain from a recent court  decision some
much-needed guidance on how to react to  student voices they dislike.

The good news for students -- and for all Americans --  is that this
newest legal lesson supports more speech  instead of more limits on
student expression.

A landmark 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision -- Tinker  v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District,  involving students and Vietnam
War protest armbands --  put forth the idea that young citizens don't
automatically surrender their First Amendment rights at  the
schoolhouse door.

But since then, courts at various levels have set about  defining when
and how officials legally could shut down  student expression. A
number of those legal limits have  been driven by security, education
or drug-related  concerns.

Many disputes are settled out-of-court, more often than  not with an
apology to the student and reinstatement.  But the 8th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals weighed in on  Sept. 2 with a common-sense decision
supporting the  rights of students to object to -- of all things -- a
school policy.

A three-judge panel agreed that school officials in  Watson Chapel,
Ark., violated the constitutional rights  of three students in 2006
who were disciplined for  wearing black armbands or wristbands to
school to  protest a new policy enforcing school uniforms, and for
handing out a flier objecting to the policy.

The administrators agreed in court that the student  protest did not
disrupt classes or order at the school.

The 8th Circuit panel said that despite restrictive  decisions since
it was handed down, including the 2007  Supreme Court decision in the
so-called "Bong Hits for  Jesus" case, "Tinker remains good law."
Students in  both Tinker and the Watson Chapel case were exercising  a
right of protest against a government policy --  something officials
in every school ought to celebrate  by example, not denigrate.

Advocates for student expression have feared that  school officials
and lower courts would expand legal  controls into other areas of
student free expression  based on the ruling in that "Bong Hits" case.
In that  case -- officially called Morse v. Frederick -- the  high
court said officials may clamp down on student  speech regarded as
encouraging drug use.

School officials in Arkansas even argued that the  subject matter was
too mundane to get constitutional  protection. The decision in the
Watson Chapel case,  however, squarely affirms that non-disruptive
student  speech, be it on issues of international interest or on
local policies such as school uniforms, is protected by  the First
Amendment.

In an era in which educators struggle to motivate  students to think
critically, and to instill basic  American values of good citizenship,
arbitrarily  denying basic rights to speak out, to write in protest,
to assemble and to peaceably "seek redress" seems
wrong-headed.

Students should learn about First Amendment freedoms in  the classroom
rather than the courtroom.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake