Pubdate: Tue, 27 Mar 2007
Source: Collegian, The (U of Tulsa, OK Edu)
Copyright: 2007 The Collegian
Contact:  http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4463
Author: Jordan Ruud, Opinion Editor
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)

LAW SLAMS 4 FREE SPEECH

Joseph Frederick waited for the cameras chronicling the Winter Olympics 
Torch Relay as it passed near his school to pass before he unfurled a 
14-foot banner reading "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" across the street from his high 
school.

Did he intend to fire off a controversy, or just to make a joke? Who knows? 
The case would have been a non-issue had the principal of his high school, 
Deborah Morse, let it slide.

Instead she suspended him for violating the Juneau School District's drug 
policy. As an ultimate consequence, the case has moved all the way up to 
the Supreme Court.

"BONG HITS 4 JESUS" -- the message grates. I get an image of high school 
students thinking they're edgy for alluding to drugs, as if the young 
haven't been verily obsessed with drugs for generations.

But that's irrelevant to the larger consideration at work. I don't like the 
overuse of the term "censorship": the phrase means official restrictions on 
speech -- not, say, the action of a private publisher deciding not to put 
out a particular work.

But Morse's punishment of Frederick does count as censorship. While the kid 
probably deserved a talking-to about how there's a time and place for 
self-expression, Morse's suspension of Frederick lacked foresight and 
perspective.

The message on the banner itself arguably isn't pro-drug at all. "BONG HITS 
4 JESUS" even lacks a verb: the message carries no real endorsement of 
anything. It's an absurd, meaningless phrase.

But the political content of the message aside, argument have been made in 
court -- and sensibly so -- that punishing students for acts of 
self-expression sets a dangerous precedent.

In the future, conservative school administrations bent on suppressing 
schools' political life could punish liberal students for political 
statements, or liberal administrations could do the same to conservative 
students.

Some might argue that schools are no place for political expression at all. 
I'd counter that the boundaries between pure politics and issues relevant 
to students in the process of education are thin indeed.

For instance, I attended the middle school in Colorado that infamously made 
the news back in the '90s for putting its principal on leave after he 
allowed students to try sips of wine at a dinner party during a 
school-sponsored trip to France.

The district's attempt to punish the principal in that case was dumb, and 
we knew it.

Students protested at board meetings and wore signs on our backpacks while 
the controversy was taking place.

When the principal was reinstated, we figured our protests had had 
something to do with the decision. Regardless of whether that was true, it 
was a thrilling and educational lesson in the effectiveness of making 
statements.

And while the "statement" at issue in the Frederick/Morse case seems a 
little more trivial, the same principle applies.

Public schools that teach the theory of democracy and then contradict lofty 
principles with their own actions send pretty poor messages to their students.

Ultimately, the simple truth is that students required to attend public 
schools, alternately pummelled and appeased by a system that makes few 
allowances for individuality, ought to be permitted whatever kind of 
harmless self-expression they want.

The only remotely defensible reason to curb students' freedom of speech 
like this is one of logistics: it's hard to exert necessary control over 
students in an educational environment of such a chaotic nature.

On the other hand, granting the freedom to make statements, even ones as 
dumb as "BONG HITS 4 JESUS," will diminish the chances of students acting 
out merely to get a rise out of "the system."

The choice facing public schools is simple. Schools can try to repress 
students' freedom, and it's inevitable that as a consequence, students will 
act out all the more.

Or else schools can give students the chance to get attention-whoring out 
of their system and watch them get bored with it. Then the legitimate, 
earnest statements that dedicated students might have to make will gain 
ground where they'll actually do some good, teaching democracy by example.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D