Pubdate: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 Source: Patriot-News, The (PA) Copyright: 2007 The Patriot-News Contact: http://www.patriot-news.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1630 http://www.mapinc.org/people/Joseph+Frederick (Joseph Frederick) SPEECH AND DISCIPLINE At a school event, court rightly finds in favor of principal over student's right to expression Thursday, June 28, 2007 We put adults in charge of schools and, while they don't always make the right decisions, it isn't in anyone's interest -- least of all students -- to undermine their authority. The principal of the Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska could have chosen to ignore student Joseph Frederick's unfurling of a banner, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," at a school-sanctioned event. But she viewed it as encouraging illegal drugs and suspended Frederick. If Frederick had taken this action on his own, outside of school, at something other than a school-sanctioned event, we would view that as an exercise of free speech beyond the reach of school authorities. Likewise, if Frederick had been engaged in some form of protest of school policies or even the quality of the cafeteria food, in our view that would be a legitimate exercise of the First Amendment. But this incident was neither of those. We believe the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling this week was correct in siding with the principal in finding that this was not a protected form of speech. This is not to condone the response of principal Deborah Morse, who was in a running feud with the rebellious Frederick. He admitted that part of the prank was to get under the principal's skin. He also was hoping to get on television when the Olympic torch passed through Juneau on its 50-state tour in 2002. He succeeded in the first part of his quest, but not the latter. Frederick had a history of trouble with school authorities, including failing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, which got him sent to the principal's office. Students don't lose their First Amendment rights when they cross the "schoolhouse gate," as the high court ruled in 1969. But this incident, which Frederick admits was intended not as a statement about drugs or religion, but as an expression of free speech, goes to the broader authority of teachers and school administrators. They must maintain discipline and order among often rebellious and difficult teenagers without it becoming a "federal case" every time they rein in student excesses. That's true even when those decisions are imperfect. There is little doubt in our mind that the principal overreacted in responding to Frederick's obscure banner. Better that she had counted to 10, or taken a deep breath, or pretended she had not seen the offending words, whatever they were supposed to mean. For this was simply a test of a principal's patience and good sense, and hardly the "epic" battle over the right of free speech that the lawyers would have us believe. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom