Our lead editorial in today's paper discusses a prank by a student that has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A high school student, waiting for the 2002 Winter Olympic's Torch Relay to pass by, raised a 14-foot banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in view of TV cameras along the route in Juneau, Alaska. His school principal ran across the street, seized the banner and suspended the student.
The case raises interesting points about free speech, but also about how far the jurisdiction of school administrators reaches. Can a school discipline a student for actions that occur off school grounds and outside of school hours?
Our editorial board meets monthly with a group of local teens (we meet again tonight, in fact). Last month, a lively debate ensued on whether or not school administrators should be able to hold students responsible for actions that occur off campus and outside of class time. Some schools were requiring students in leadership clubs to pledge to abide by a code of conduct. Students found to have been at parties where alcohol was served were barred from club membership. Other teens pointed out that school athletes have long been held to higher standards, even when it involves out-of-school activities.
What do you think? Was the school official in the right or wrong? And what about the student's right to freedom of speech, even if his speech was stupid and intended as a joke?
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
7 Comments
Advertisement
"What do you think?" -- The kid had a right to make a fool of themselves in the public eye.
"Was the school official in the right or wrong?" -- Yes, she was wrong to punish the student and grab his banner. She had no legal right.
"And what about the student's right to freedom of speech, even if his speech was stupid and intended as a joke?" -- The student, as well as every American citizen, has the right to make a fool of themselves, no matter how foolish or inflammatory the statement or act may be.
Would I have made the same choice? No. But legally, we have the right to make that choice.
The school official was completely in the wrong. Had it been an official school outing, then she would have had the grounds for her actions. Since they let school out and the kids had the right to do whatever they wanted to do that day, she had no jurisdiction. She could have informed a police officer or someone from the parade committee or approached the students and asked them if they thought what they were doing was appropriate. She could have even waited until school was back in session and brought them in and punished them based on morality rules that most schools have. But those kids, in this instance, are absolutely correct: They had their freedom of speech denied by someone who had no right to do so.
I'm not so sure. Were the kids still under the supervision of the school officials? Would the parents have sued the school if one of the kids got hurt? Do "school" and "education" only apply to what happens within the four walls of the classroom?
I think it's significant that the trial court found in favor of the school. Should the school official be expected to have a better grasp on this area of law than a federal judge?
I have mixed emotions on this one - kind of like watching your mother-in-law going over a cliff in your favorite car!
Weird cases like this make for poor case law. What bizarre precedents the judicial bureaucrats will derive from this case .... well, who knows?
I would much rather see the Supreme Court dealing with college "speech codes." (Maybe they are and I'm just not aware of it). College speech codes are actually free-speech inhibiting and are done under the guise (cloak) of campus policies against "harassment." The way the courts have defined "harassment," so far, is overly broad and vague. Campus anti-free speech policies are starting to be challenged in the courts. Most of the time college administrators decide to back off rather than face litigation they were probably going to lose anyways.
The REAL free-speech issues are being fought on our college campuses right now!
will we get a court presidence that criminalizes goofiness?...i'm screwed.
My question to Lisa Marie Boyles -- Did you think Bong Hits For Jesus was a baseball headline?
I agree with Mike D. Long ago, an administrator once informed me that the school district can be held liable for students until the official ending time of a school day, even if the students leave earlier. And the official end time may be past the time the students actually leave the campus. If a student is released into the custody of the legal guardian or person that is approved on the emergency card, then that liability is released. If this was the case, then I can understand the actions of this particular administrator. If the student's actions could be considered inflammatory, then there was the possiblity of a student safety issue. If there had been no actions taken to prevent it, & the student was under the school's liability, the parents could have sued the distrtict for negligence. I suppose if you really wish to know, you should contact a lawyer that specializes in that area or your own school administrator or district.