Mother Talkers

Supreme Lunacy

by Amy

Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:25:04 PM PDT

The case that the Supreme Court debated today must have really strained the justices' sense of dignity and/or the muscles required to retain a straight face.

Somewhere in Alaska, a public high school aspired to be a photo-op stop on the trail of the Olympic torch. Just as the torch runner was about to sprint regally down the street bordering the campus, high school senior Joseph Frederick unfurled a home-made banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Funny + stupid = prank.

That's right. Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Now, imagine, if you will, each of the robed justices uttering this phrase.

I can't imagine how or why this case ended up in the Supreme Court. What happened to the prankster is what would happen to any prankster at pretty much any high school. The principal got pissed, tore the sign down, and suspended the senior for ten days. That's what makes a prank a prank – the risk of getting caught, the thrill of pissing off the authorities, the status that comes from getting in trouble.

  • ::

Unfortunately, this case has morphed into something much greater, with the two sides digging in to unreasonable extremes. Added to that are national organizations aligning themselves with the extreme, untenable positions.

The National School Boards Association, siding with Juneau officials, says administrators should have expansive latitude to stop messages related to subjects such as drugs, guns, homosexuality and abortion. On Frederick's side are an unusual contingent of liberal groups, including the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and conservatives, including the Alliance Defense Fund — all worried that credible student views will be censored.

I hate to see this prank made into a free speech vs. censorship issue. I also hate to see this made into a War on Drugs issue. It's neither! Kenneth Starr (remember him?) is urging the Supreme Court to let public schools ban signs, buttons or other messages that undercut their anti-drug policy. Even if this was reasonable, it would be impossible because youth slang for drugs is prodigious, sly, and constantly changing.

Equally impossible and unreasonable is to take away a principal's right to discipline pranksters. Having worked in a high school, I know that there would be some unfortunate consequences to teenagers believing that a principle could not take disciplinary action against them if they chose to monkeywrench a school event.

Frederick should have taken his punishment like the generations of proud pranksters before him. This should have never ended up in court. It's a joke.

Tags: supreme court, teenagers, pranks, drugs (all tags)

Permalink | 84 comments

  • Stickler moment (0 / 0)

    Principal not Principle.

    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly"

    by lonestar canuck on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:02:17 AM PDT

  • oy, what a waste (0 / 0)

    it must be tough to be a school administrator these days.  in our area there is a brouha brewing over student privacy rights at campolindo high school in moraga.  apparently another high school prankster disrupted a class when his cell kept ringing.  the teacher seized the student's phone and sent it to the office.  apparently an administrator went through all the voicemail and text messages and concluded illegal activity and called the police. link here to contra costa times article on the incident.

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/...

    the assumption of illegal activity was wrong and the kid was cleared...but pissed by the administration's view that they could turn on his phone and proceed to go through his phone messages.

    what are kid's rights?  if a kid blatantly disregards the rules around cell phones at school does he lose his right to privacy?  if a kid posts an objectionable sign promoting a drug message..is that free speech that can not be infringed upon?   perhaps we see this kind of crap end up in the supreme court because we have no community that knows what it wants to demand of our kids and our schools.  rather, it seems to me it is all about "my kid"  and "me". not much consideration of implications for the community as a whole. sad...

    by parentalunit1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:45:54 AM PDT

    • i'm interested (0 / 0)

      in hearing more about campo's incident which i had heard about listening to several parents over the weekend debate what happened and their views on their musings.

      i'm not up on the actual law differences when attending a public school, but i believe there are substantive differences regarding individual rights of privacy and speech.

      it's my experience that there is at least one and sometimes quite a few families who pursue an issue like this which undermines the school's authority in ways perhaps not intended.

      i can't fathom being a teacher or administrator these days although i do love teenage kids and admire the teachers who want to pursue that profession -- i think the parents often make the job much worse than the kids --

       they say only stupid birds shit in their own nests...perhaps we are some kind of stupid birds...sigh

      karen

      by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:43:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • Wow (0 / 0)

      That shocks me, I have to say.  Confiscating the cell phone - no problem, but reading the text messages??

      Katherine

      by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:23:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • ny times has chimed in (0 / 0)

    see link below

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    think i agree.

    by parentalunit1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:27:47 AM PDT

    • interesting .. (0 / 0)

      i just read the article..it seems the incident took place off school grounds which makes that situation different imo - and actually not even an incident per se since that student was doing nothing illegal .. and because i have raised teenagers and am around lots of them, a part of me laughed at the humor and action this kid took.  it seems very innocuous.  i'm surprised that the sign could be confiscated even since there were no laws broken...interesting.  

      i do see a difference if the banner was shown on school grounds - at our hs any language promoting illegal activities, or demeaning any race or gender or sexual orientation, is prohibited --  i believe that the material is taken away though without any suspension unless, i guess, if there were multiple incidences.

      when ds was a junior or senior, he wore a cap to school that he got at a garage sale that had a playboy bunny symbol on the front (no writing, just a small white symbol against a black hat)...he was asked not to wear it at school again.  frankly, i was glad of the school's authority and hadn't wanted him to wear that particular hat as i personally found it offensive --- we talked about it, he felt differently than i did and i decided to let the situation work itself out without my intervention.  i felt good about the principal (who is male and admired by the students) had a chance to talk with ds about why it wasn't appropriate and how female students might feel about his choice.  i thought that was a valuable experience for him coming from an adult man he respected, and not my saying he couldn't wear it.  i was confident it would be an issue and he would have to take it off which helped me step back and let the experience play out.

      karen

      by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:59:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • That's exactly (0 / 0)

        what I was going to say.  Why is this an issue if he did this off campus?  Another thought... what if it said "Bong hits for Buddha" or "Bong hits for Allah"?  Would there be as much of an uproar?  

        Two things that struck me as odd in the msnbc article, is that the principal doubled his suspension after he quoted Jefferson.  Also questionable, his father was fired from his job, where he worked for a company that insures the school system because of his son's legal fight.  The father ended up suing and recently won $200,000 for his trouble.  

        "If it's not Scottish, it's crap!" ~Mike Meyers

        by 1plain1peanut on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:25:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • interesting. (0 / 0)

          This underscores why there are people who will push hard against any authority that starts chipping away at individual rights - including students on public school grounds, even though this particular incident sounds like it was off school property.

          Like so many situations, it is frequently more complicated than it first appears.

          karen

          by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:42:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • wow (0 / 0)

          the sueing, the firing -- it's starting to sound like a modern day Deliverance with lots of feuds under the surface that we might not know about.  The father lost his job?  It sounds small-town and vicious to me.

          I agree with Amy that this was a prank and a 10-day suspension probably was in order.  I would have supported such a suspension if it were my son.  Is it just "these days," or have parents always taken their child's side against the authorities who are helping to raise them?

          by mamacita on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:05:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Suspension (0 / 0)

            Well, it was a 5 day suspension according to the article until the student quoted Jefferson.  Then, the principal got pissed and doubled the suspension to 10 days.  

            "If it's not Scottish, it's crap!" ~Mike Meyers

            by 1plain1peanut on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:28:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          • 10 days is a long time (0 / 0)

            And the doubling after quoting Jefferson is really over the top.

            First, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Kid not in school, kid not learning, and in my state, school loses out on funds. If he were a real troublemaker, a suspension is a holiday as much as a punishment.

            If you really wanted to punish this kid, I'd suggest some sort of community service.

            But more to the point, they weren't at school. No one would've known it was school related in any way had the school not reacted.

            I wish Judge Kozinski on the 9th circuit had heard this. He would've written a killer funny opinion. (Among his most famous cases was Mattel v. MCA, about a Barbie infringement, about which he wrote, "If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong." He ends the opinion with, "The parties are advised to chill.")

            by shenanigans on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:16:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Jefferson and School Grounds (0 / 0)

              The principal upping the suspension to ten days because of the Jefferson quote indicates to me that they were engaged in a upping-the-ante power game. I'm wondering if the kid was emboldened, knowing that his parents would back him up and undermine the principal's authority. Impossible to guess...

              The school grounds/school function aspect gets cloudy for me. It did happen on the street outside the high school, which lends credibility to the view that it was a school-sponsored event. However, the boy pulled his prank on the opposite side of the street, which wasn't school grounds. I guess he could have also done it on the sidewalk adjacent to the campus, since technically that's not school grounds.

              But again, if any adult man carried a sign saying the same thing on the sidewalk outside a school, chances are good that the cops would shoo him away, take his sign, or both.

              by Amy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:33:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • in our district (0 / 0)

                my understanding is the school's authority can extend beyond the physical grounds depending on certain factors -- i.e., school sponsored event, or if a student is coming or going to school the school can exert authority in certain circumstances.

                i don't agree necessarily with the suspension at all.  i think it is counterproductive and seems harsh in view of the "offense."  i agree though that there should have been consequences, but different ones.

                people are making a mess out of a fairly simple situation, imo.

                karen

                by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:37:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              • If a cop did that... (0 / 0)

                it would be a violation of the man's First Amendment rights.

                -Alan

                by SlackerInc on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:42:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • which wouldn't stop them (0 / 0)

                  I remember in the early days after 9/11 a man in upstate New York was arrested for refusing to turn his "Peace" t-shirt inside out.

                  We're living in spooky times.  Those rights they told us about in civics class?  Eh, not so much.

                  by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:07:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              • As was pointed out (0 / 0)

                But again, if any adult man carried a sign saying the same thing on the sidewalk outside a school, chances are good that the cops would shoo him away, take his sign, or both.

                Do they not have the First Amendment in Alaska, then?

                And it seems to me that your concern is for the school and the principal having their authority undermined, whereas I fail to see why the school sees fit to punish a student for something he did that wasn't on school grounds.

                Am I just misunderstanding the issue? Because if my daughter was punished for a sign she put up while she wasn't in school, you'd better believe I'd fight it to the Supreme Court. Particularly once the principal doubled the punishment after the student quoted Jefferson - I thought they were supposed to be learning history and civics.

                by Moody Loner on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:32:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • Other comments in the thread (0 / 0)

                  I feel strongly that the school should have no say over what students do when off-campus. However, if you read the comment thread, you will see that grey areas exist when talking about school-sponsored events. There are variations from district to district on where the boundaries are drawn.

                  In this case, if I understand it correctly, the event was on the street right next to the school and it was a school-sponsored event.

                  by Amy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:25:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  • Street right next to the school (0 / 0)

                    doesn't matter.

                    If he was part of a school-sponsored event, and thus under the supervision of school officials, then the school begins to have a point.

                    Perhaps the point that this was a school-sponsored event and the kid was attending it should be in the diary, then - as that illustrates that the school's behavior is not random authoritarianism but rather very specific authoritarianism.

                    by Moody Loner on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 07:33:45 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    • Actually, I believe in some districts (0 / 0)

                      it would matter about the incident taking place directly across the street and including a current student of the school.

                      karen

                      by karen m on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:39:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      • Why? (0 / 0)

                        And, is that right?

                        Were I fired for holding up a sign disagreeing with my work, across the street from my place of employment and not identifying myself as an employee, I would think the case against my employer for harassment, discrimination, and termination without cause would be solid.

                        How is this kid's story any different?

                        by Moody Loner on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 12:38:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        • i believe that schools (0 / 0)

                          have a different standard of authority over their students than laws controlling the general populace...depending i imagine on state laws and perhaps within differing school districts...not sure actually of particulars.

                          often there are laws providing for school's authority over their students actions even when not on the school property. much has been stated in this thread about those.    in general, i think these laws were intended for the safety of kids -- also when schools are sued by parents, laws may then get passed that are intended to protect the school by giving them wider authority in order to "control" students' behavior thereby limiting ways in which harm may come to them or others.

                          i also do not think that getting fired is  equal to suspension - although i do think that the suspension punishment was not productive or meaningful and probably served to exacerbate a ridiculous situation into a serious situation.  

                          i do imagine there are instances where an employer takes some probationary action with regard to employees if the employer feels it is warranted i.e. the employee is doing something that the employer perceives injures his success conducting business etc..

                          karen

                          by karen m on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 04:39:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    • I wasn't clear about that (0 / 0)

                      except for the phrase "activity related to school" in the photo caption, I'm not sure what happened at all.

                      by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:08:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                • school was in session (0 / 0)

                  the students were released to watch the torch runner.

                  (If I'm reading the NY Times link, above, correctly.)

                  by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:15:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              • since it seems like it happened (0 / 0)

                during school hours, it's no different than how a student's conduct would be viewed during a field trip.  If a student decided to key the schoolbus  during a school trip to the museum he would be dealt with differently (e.g., school officials would be involved) than if he keyed a car in the Target parking lot on the weekend.

                by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:14:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            • I agree with you (0 / 0)

              This reaction seems pretty over the top to me.

              Katherine

              by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:28:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            • yes to the first part (0 / 0)

              and LOL to the second part re the judge.

              karen

              by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 11:29:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            • the photo caption (0 / 0)

              connected to the article said is was "an activity related to school."  I actually couldn't tell much about the incident from reading the msnbc article, which really focused on the SCOTUS case.

              I'm not sure I would want to use community service as a punishment.  It's no fun for the program administrator of such a service to have to deal with a sullen volunteer, and I think treating service as a negative thing sends the wrong message to future citizens.

              I disagree that this should have become, literally, a federal case.  And in a functional community, a fair punishment would have been a healthy thing.  I get the feeling this is not a healthy community, and things got out of hand.  Regrettable.

              by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:05:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        • it was during school hours (0 / 0)

          by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:11:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    • Ditto (0 / 0)

      He was off campus, most importantly, IMHO.

      And honestly, banning speech about something just makes teenagers that much more likely to do it! I know it did me.

      Weird, random thought here - I'm rereading Harry Potter to prep for the final book in July - and Dumbledore says in book one, paraphrasing here, fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself (referencing Voldemort). Denying students the right to even use the word just drives the obsession with it even deeper or further. Make it a common joke, and it loses it's potency.

      "the "well-informed citizenry" envisioned by our framers has degenerated into a "well-amused audience." Tad Daley, Alternet - interview w/ Al Gore 05/22/07

      by cgiselle12 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:00:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • temporarily off campus (0 / 0)

        From the NYTimes editorial:

        Joseph Frederick and his fellow students were allowed to leave the grounds of Juneau-Douglas High School so they could watch the Olympic torch pass nearby. When the cameras began to roll, he unfurled his banner, which he says was meant to be funny and get him on television. The principal took it from him, and suspended him for 10 days.

        It reads to me like this happened during school hours, during a time when school staff is responsible for the students.  

        by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:21:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    • this article gives the impression (0 / 0)

      that school was in session, and students were released to watch the torch runner pass by.  In that case, the students were still technically in school, and the student's behavior was provocative.  

      If one of the students dropped acid during that interval and jumped off a building, you better believe the school would have liable.

      by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:11:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • On language (0 / 0)

    Your point on the changing slang is so true.  When I was in college, I had some friends whose euphamism for smoking pot was "riding the bus."  They got the idea one day while looking at a sign on campus promoting public transit that said "Ride the Bus."  Who would ever guess that?  For awhile, we called having sex "boofing scoobies."  I think it came from a joke, I don't know.  But if you try to stay on top of banning any drug- or sex-related speech, you will lose.

    by cynmill on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:38:28 AM PDT

    • time much better spent (0 / 0)

      by government in funding a REAL science based, research based drug, alcohol and sex education program aimed at middle school through high school.  

      did any of you all see the HBO special this past week on addiction?  powerful.  if this has turned into a drug case than get kenneth starr outta there and let's get down to it where we can make real impact.

      by parentalunit1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:59:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • Chuckle (0 / 0)

    I did laugh a little picturing the justices asking questions and parsing what was the offensive part: the bong hits or the Jesus, or the combination.

    But there are a number of serious issues in there - esp the off campus bit - so it'll be interesting.

    Fast forward far in the future, if ds were to pull such a stunt (which I think is obnoxious, kind of humorous, and not really harmful - but hurt the pride of the principal and others in the school community), I would support the principal in the suspension, most likely. I would try to negotiate with him/her over the length - two weeks out of school is a lot.

    The firing is what should have made it to the Supreme Court, I think.

    RachelD

    by RachelD on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:19:14 AM PDT

  • :shrug: (0 / 0)

    Will you all think less of me if I told you that DH and I spent the entire time they covered this story on the NewsHour last night giggling.

    Me:  huh huh, Bong Hits 4 Jesus, that's funny! huh huh...

    DH:  he he he he, that kid!  Bong Hits 4 Jesus, that's funny!  he he he

    Me: (attempting to address the serious side of the story) Well, now, he wasn't on school grounds, it seems they'd have no authority if someone put up a sign that said Bong Hits 4 Jesus.  he he he he he he he

    DH: he he he he ha ha ha ha :rofl:

    Me: :rofl:

    Miles and His Favorites: The World As Seen By an Eight Year Old

    by Hillary on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

  • It's Simple, It's Fascism (0 / 0)

    And I don't use that word lightly. The government (public school) cannot dictate what you say off campus, unless it is a direct incitement to violence or other immediate felony behavior.

    Take this seriously. No splitting the difference copt outs such as "reality is complicated."

    by sleeper on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:58:41 AM PDT

    • ya know.. (0 / 0)

      i think i have to agree here. this kid wasn't on school grounds.  and the cell phone incident at our local school was over the top as well( if i got all the facts right).  but man, i sure understand school administrator's predicament in general.

      by parentalunit1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:02:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I think if School Administrator (0 / 0)

        Had laughed it off, maybe put the kid to work shovelling snow, I think his job might be a little easier.

        by shenanigans on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:19:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      • i think i agree also, depending (0 / 0)

        on what the facts turn out to be.  the whole thing seems outside the bounds of reason in terms of the authority being exerted.  

        i think even at our school a kid could start a club which sponsored legalizing pot -- and conversely would be discplined if the club were sponsoring illegal behavior, or racist language, or any kind of support of violence.  but i do think our district would first take away offensive sign or club, not suspend immediately -- that seems ridiculous and non-productive, imo.

        karen

        by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:42:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • About quoting Jefferson (0 / 0)

    So the suspension got doubled over a quote from Jefferson.

    I can never figure out why, oh why adults let themselves get baited by toddlers or teenagers. Only the adult comes out looking silly.

    Five day suspension, kid, quote all the Founders you like. (Constitutional issues aside, I'm just trying to figure out why a principal let herself come off like this).

    RachelD

    by RachelD on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:36:47 AM PDT

  • Totally disagree (0 / 0)

    I'm all for school discipline (just a few minutes ago, I got into a war of wills with a girl who was talking in class--I told her to move to a different seat, she refused, I told her she'd better do it or else I'd call the assistant principal, she finally caved) but this was not at school.  The principal had no right to discipline the student for something he did off campus.

    -Alan

    by SlackerInc on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:45:25 AM PDT

    • although there are (0 / 0)

      different laws at work with regard to school authority -- some relate to how far off campus an activity takes place, some relate to whether the student is on his/her way to or from school, some relate to if the school has any sponsorship of the event, etc.  if the school gave permission for the students to attend a function which wasn't sponsored by the school but was during school hours it might then be construed that the school still has some authority.

      in any event, i think suspension etc., was too extreme.  take the offending sign away and have a "teachable" moment/opportunity with some other consequence.

      karen

      by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 11:34:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • In the district my oldest went to (0 / 0)

      if a student went to a party on a Saturday and the cops showed up and ticketed kids for alcohol or possession, the school could suspend... even though the event didn't happen at school, on school property or at a school sponsored event.  It may be that way in all districts in the state, I don't know.  I know it's true in our current district w/ regard to weapons charges and I think w/ fights that occur outside of school time, off school grounds, etc.  

      by TeachPeace on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:49:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • in my old high school (0 / 0)

        kids that played sports (including marching band) had to sign an honor code that included a curfew and not consuming drugs/alcohol. Didn't apply to the rest of us, but that was 16-12 years ago. It did happen a couple of times, after the really big raging parties, that the jocks would get suspended or thrown off the team for doing just that, and, sure as pigs like mud, their parents would be on the phone, b*tching and moaning at the unfair agreement. I could never get that - their kids signed a pledge not to do that as part of being on a team, and they thought the school was wrong for enforcing the pledge? I mean, if anything, attack the pledge, not the breaking of said pledge...

        by Rachel on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:20:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • I refused to sign that (0 / 0)

          It was kind of an interesting case if it had ever been taken to court, I think.  I was on the school newspaper, which was also a course called "Journalism".  It counted as an English credit, but--slacker that I was and am--I was the only one on the paper who actually was using the credit to get my minimum requirements for graduation (I also dropped Calculus in the first week of school when I figured out I didn't need it to graduate, lol).  So once the school year was in swing, for me this wasn't just an "activity": had I been kicked off the school paper, it would have prevented me from graduating!

          I went round and round with the teacher about this, and he was just furious with me about it.  (This was the same guy who used to be livid at assemblies when I refused to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.)  But I never signed it, and he ultimately did not kick me off the newspaper (which is to say, out of the class).

          Incidentally, has anyone read or seen the documentary about the family (in some rural red state, not sure exactly where) that fought up to federal court the school district's policy of requiring drug tests for all students?  They were successful in court, but they became utter pariahs in the town.  And they were not big city folk that moved into town, but working class folks with deep roots in the area.  I admire them so deeply.

          BTW, even before I was ever "guilty" of such crimes against humanity as imbibing alcohol or ingesting controlled substances, I was super stubborn and idealistic about standing up for my civil liberties.  In fact, I was really more stubborn about it back then, because once there was anything I could actually get into legal trouble for, I was less likely to want to stand up to cops concerning my constitutional rights, because the sad fact is that you're probably more likely to get caught that way than if you play the role of "I'm innocent, I have nothing to hide" (if you've hidden it well, lol).

          -Alan

          by SlackerInc on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:37:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      • But those are violations of the law (0 / 0)

        No one can argue that teens have a constitutionally protected right to do those things.  So I think having consequences for breaking laws is different from having consequences for expressing ideas the school does not like.

        -Alan

        by SlackerInc on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:21:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • We're in agreement on this issue (0 / 0)

          There seem to be differing opinions regarding whether or not this event was school sponsored, etc.  Regardless, I think the principal mishandled the situation.

          My personal feeling is that schools should not have any jurisdiction over my child outside of school hours, off school property, w/ the exception of school sponsored events. I maintain that viewpoint even with respect to illegal activity. If my kid is drinking at the homecoming game, suspend him and call the cops.  If my kid is drinking at some buddy's party, and the cops are called, that's not the school's business.  It's law enforcement's business, and the court's business, and my business... but why should the school also be allowed to inflict punishment?  

          by TeachPeace on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:45:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      • a few years ago (0 / 0)

        I worked in a high school.  One Saturday night, two students were killed during a party.  It was not at all related to school, yet the school worked hard to help the surviving kids deal with the incident (counseling, writing cards for the parents, excused absences, etc.).

        by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:23:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • Suspension sounds draconian to me. (0 / 0)

    The principal had every right to take the sign down and send the kids home, but if you follow the suspension rates in many of our urban schools its not difficult to understand why so many students are doing so poorly.  

    by tjb22 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:46:02 AM PDT

  • In all seriousness... (0 / 0)

    This bugs me:

    [blockquote]Justice Anthony Kennedy was sympathetic to the efforts to counter illegal drug use. Frederick's sign, he said, "was completely disruptive of the message ... the school wanted to promote ... completely disruptive of the school's image that they wanted to portray in sponsoring the Olympics."[/blockquote]

    It's too bad that it was "disruptive" but it wasn't violent or incendiary and it seems he was well within his rights.

    I think an abortion protestor standing outside a clinic with a sign that says "don't kill your baby, sinner" is disruptive and not in keeping with the dignified atmosphere my community wishes to portray, but I'd never say that the protestor didn't have a right to stand there with that sign.

    That's free speech, that's the whole point!!!

    Miles and His Favorites: The World As Seen By an Eight Year Old

    by Hillary on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:05:43 AM PDT

    • i agree with you. (0 / 0)

      today i was listening to a radio interview that discussed this current topic...but one caller said that students should be allowed to say anything and use speech in any way they choose on campus or off.

      i don't agree with that.  i think there is another obligation that a school has when dealing with students, many of whom are minors.  And that is the assumption and the obligation that the school provides a safe atmosphere for student learning.  if there is free speech in total, does that mean that racist, misogynistic, hate filled, violent messages can be displayed at a student's whim?  

      imo, the school must take, and should have the authority to enforce, the stance that the individual right to free speech is curtailed by the right of all students to a safe environment.

      karen

      by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 11:41:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • You're so right (0 / 0)

      Even on campus, the Supreme Court ruled during the Vietnam War that students had a right to wear black armbands (an antiwar symbol) even though the school said it was "disruptive", because it was a legitimate form of political expression.

      -Alan

      by SlackerInc on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:17:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • this is wiggy (0 / 0)

      Since when does the Constitution prohibit "disruptive" signs and behavior? I kinda thought the whole First Amendment was in favor of that sort of thing? OK, if the sign had said "Do Bong Hits 4 Jesus in Our High School," that's akin to standing in a crowded theater and yelling "fire", but this was just a dumb prank.

      But I really have to question why this got to the Supreme Court? What is going on in this town that things got so out of control? Whatever happened to measured discourse?

      by Rachel on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:56:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • when it gets to this (0 / 0)

      point, the supreme court, you gotta support free speech.  it's a mess because we've gotten so contentious as a society.  if it was my kid?  i would have supported the school and worked with them.  and i would have supported a consequence.  but what i see all too frequently are parents simply objecting to discipline that exposes them or their kids. it's shameful and in the long run it is making it impossible for school administrators to navigate.  we need a community and that includes parents, teachers and the administration.  it just isn't all about ME!

      by parentalunit1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:10:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Yes. (0 / 0)

        I agree, when it get to the Supreme Court, you have to support free speech. It's unfortunate in this case that a choice must be made between absolutes, neither of which really work well with kids or in public schools. Adults are still calling the shots, and making arbitrary censorship decisions.

        And I would behave the same way you described if it was my kid--supporting a consequence, even if I found the prank funny, which I did in this case.

        Even if I did think the principal was a fascist bitch, I would tell my son to take his lumps and choose his battles wisely. That it just isn't worth it in the long run to fight this principal for the right to get "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on the local TV news.

        If his banner was something more earnest, say, he was protesting the school's decision to quash Gay-Straight Alliance clubs--I would support his decision to make it a First Amendment fight.

        I just hate that this incident led to such entrenched division, and became an authoritarian vs. free speech tug-o-war.  I fear the precedent that either ruling will have on public school campuses.

        by Amy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:34:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • it may be that the ruling is (0 / 0)

          along the lines that the student has the right to free speech and the school has the right to enforce consequences for speech the school defines as unacceptable according to their authority which would have to take into consideration the issue of where and under what conditions the school has authority.

          the entrenchment reminds me of the recent threads we've had here where there has been discussion of black and white.   it's interesting to look back at the comments listed in this thread to see how each of our thinking plays out - whether we would want to try to work out a solution or understand more of the story or simply go to battle.

          imo, it would seem the principal could have been much less punitive and the student's family could also have chosen to work with the school rather than go to court.  perhaps there is more to the story than we know - one can hope.

          i grow concerned when a child's individual "rights" circumvent and undermine the rules of  school, or other rights of students at school, because the learning of discipline, and living in partnership with others, instead of in battle with them, gets lost.  i'm all for working to change rules if they are inherently flawed, but i'd rather encourage working within a system before going to battle.

          i was at a meeting today and parent after parent commented that many kids  feel they are entitled to whatever they want...   my question is, how did they come to think that way?

          it seems to me the answer generally rests with the way  parents have raised their children.  But no one wants to hear that answer.  it's less painful to  blame something outside of ourselves or to deny any problem exists in the first place.  but in the end we don't escape it and we all share in the results.

           

          karen

          by karen m on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:43:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • you have hit upon (0 / 0)

            something here that i have been thinking about since this diary was posted.  this may sound clueless, but since when do high school students have all of these "rights"?  i think i first heard it last year when my dd was a freshman around student complaints of their rights at dances. while i don't want my kid in any way abused, i certainly don't think she has all the rights of an adult in a high school.

            by parentalunit1 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:01:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • yup. i too don't (0 / 0)

              want my child or now, emerging young adult abused.  on the other hand, as we both have talked about, there is such a contingent of adults now who hammer schools in ways that undermine every bit of authority the schools desperately need in order to have a safe place of learning.

              i continue to be amazed at the level of disrespect and out right rudeness that parents  display towards authority, especially at school. and of course now the kids are doing the same thing. it is vitriolic.  again and again i have heard from the staff at schools, teachers, admin and also and often, clerical staff, that parents are unbelievably self-righteous and demanding in addition to being blatantly rude and demeaning. i have heard the complaints and have seen first hand stuff that curls my hair.  

              i think parents need to really weigh their actions before they launch off to do battle.  our kids are watching closely and will learn the lessons well that we model.

              karen

              by karen m on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:26:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • amen! (0 / 0)

                Maybe it was the blue collar family and town I grew up in, where adults in positions of authority were peceived as very powerful, but I cannot imagine my parents or my neighbors choosing to take the loudly harsh positions I see parents taking towards teachers and administrators in my current community.  Of course there were teachers with Napoleon complexes and burn-out, and of course there were quiet conversations that ended with Johnny being moved into a different teacher's class.  

                It seems to me now that parents think little of publicly trashing school employees.  In our district there was one gadfly who showed up for every board meeting and hoarded other people's leftover minutes so that he could blast a specific district employee for 20 - 30 minutes a month.  His complaints were non-specific and time-wasting.  At no point did it seem that a specific child, or any group of children, was benefiting from his incessant ranting. For those of us on the outside of the conflict, it was mystifying (we never knew what his real beef was) and frustrating to have board meeting time spent this way.  The board eventually decided to limit each person's time to 3 minutes, and leftover minutes could not be deeded to other speakers, which helped.  

                by mamacita on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:46:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        • yup amy (0 / 0)

          it is a waste.  

          i only learned last year that my parents were enraged with the local police department that hauled me in when i was a teen.  i had been parked with my boyfriend and cops came up to the car.  i gave them lip so they hauled me in and called my parents to pick me up.  that night my folks were all over me.  and it wasn't about being parked...it was ALL about my "tude" with the police officer.

          i learned from my mom that she and my dad were really pissed as the call from police simply said they needed to get down to station as i had been picked up with a "MAN".  they didn't tell them it was my boyfriend who was all of 16 years old.  despite my parents anger at the cops, they focused on the prize. the prize was a teaching moment, not their anxiety and worry till they got to the police station.  my parents did a good job that night.

          by parentalunit1 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 07:52:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  • Prank or not? (0 / 0)

    Well, after my DH told me that he'd absolutely go to the Supreme Court defending our son in this situation, I was confused.  Wasn't this a prank? DH told me that it was planned. I had to do more reading on the issue.  Turns out,

    Frederick freely admitted he was challenging school authority.

    The fact that it was all part of a plan is confirmed by this

    "She suspended me for five days and I couldn't believe I was being suspended for a free speech experiment," said Frederick, who is plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. "And furthermore, after quoting Thomas Jefferson, ‘Speech limited is speech lost,' Ms. Morse responded, ‘You've just earned another five-day suspension.'"

    "We've GOT to make noises in greater amounts! So, open your mouth, lad! For every voice counts!"

    by progressiveinky on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:00:51 PM PDT

  • hah (0 / 0)

    If I'dve been the principal, I would have offerd the kid this:

    OK, dude, you're so good on testing free speech,  and serious about exploring the limits on free speech and have taken the time to look up Jefferson and such, I have a proposal for you: you do a 20-page research paper on the history of free speech, or free speech as it applies to school districts, or what have you. We'll get the history teacher to take a look at it. If you've done something of merit, you're free of the suspention and the paper will count towards your history grade. If you're not serious and just trying to cloak a prank as a test of free speech - as evidenced by not treating the project seriously, suspension comes back into force.

    by Rachel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 03:57:43 PM PDT

    • YEAH way to talk it Rachel! (0 / 0)

      karen

      by karen m on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:24:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • of course (0 / 0)

        I'm not a school principal. But if Jess does something like this in a decade or so, I might be tempted to give her a little "extracurricular" assignment!

        by Rachel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:37:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • just today in my dd's school (0 / 0)

          there was a quickly called " parents forum".  i am traveling this week so couldn't attend and asked my mother to go instead.  this forum was called as apparently many parents were distressed over a few issues, but one of them was why the administration had called the police onto campus for "senior pranks".  the administration had to actually explain to the parents that the pranks were pranks that resulted in significant damage to school property that the school district had to pay for.  or in other words that OUR tax dollars had to pay for.  apparently these parents can't assess that a prank that results in damage that has to be paid for comes from our collective pockets. fortunately the administration stood their ground and informed the parents club and others who joined that under no circumstances would they tolerate the destruction of property.

          we've gone mad.  my dear mother came back in utter shock at what she witnessed today from parents.

          by parentalunit1 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:15:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • oh melinda -- your (0 / 0)

            poor Mum...that's a reality check, eh?

            I mean now that I think of it, trying to imagine my parents sitting in on some of these meetings - they would be blown away....although i must  say that they had front row seats in the boat on de Nile...big time...but at least they had the reasonable "excuse" of a generation of parents who were all absolutely clueless with regard to drugs and alcohol...our generation of parents can hardly use any kind of reasoning regarding being clueless..

            well, here's to another day in the glorious corps.

            karen

            by karen m on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:54:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  • perspective from Alaska (0 / 0)

    I've been avidly reading much of the national coverage of this, and nearly tearing my hair out at some of the Lower 48 misperceptions. I'd like to set the record straight, and also provide a little Alaska cultural context:
    -- It was not a school event in any way, the kid (actually, an 18-year-old adult at the time) was not on school grounds and the school had zero authority over what he did. School was out of session. The banner was raised on a public sidewalk. The teacher had no more authority to rip it down and suspend the student than she did to rip down a sign and suspend some person demonstrating on the state capitol steps elsewhere in Juneau, or to punish some local fishermen for mooning pedestrians at the harbor across from the school.
    (SPECIAL NOTE TO AMY: Principal Deborah Morse had no authority to impose any punishment. This did not happen in school, on school property, or during any school-sanctioned or school-sponsored activity. IT WAS NOT A SCHOOL EVENT! (The sound you hear is me ripping out my hair.) School had been dismissed. Kids and teachers and other members of the general public were present, but there was simply no school jurisdiction here. THIS IS NOT ABOUT PRESERVING SCHOOL OFFICIALS' AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN DISCPLINE IN SCHOOL. I hope that's clear.)
    -- The principal and the student had a long history of tangling, with the cheeky student usually getting the better of the infuriated principal. Basically, think Bart Simpson v. Principal Skinner. As a matter of fact, I think I've already seen this episode a few times on my favorite TV show.
    -- "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is a snowboarder slogan. That tells you a lot of what you need to know. Once it was obscure. Now it's a really famous slogan, and I'm sure there are many musicians trying to claim it as their band names.
    -- Pot is a big political issue in Alaska, and long has been. Debating the merits of legalization is a big part of the cultural and political scene.
    -- Most people in Juneau (one of the most liberal burgs in Alaska), and I think most people in Alaska, believe the principal and school board were incredibly stupid to make such a big deal over this. This goes for liberals and conservatives. Had the principal just shrugged it off, everybody would have forgotten about Bong Hits 4 Jesus in about 10 minutes, says a recent editorial in the Fairbanks newspaper. And Juneau citizens were very vocal in telling the school board to just drop it; the board just didn't listen.
    -- Frederick's non-conformist activities are part of a long and cherished Alaska tradition of being eccentric, outlandish and thumbing noses at authorities. People who are upset at "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" would surely have freaked out over the antics of such state celebrities as Alaskan Independence Party founder (and frequent ubernatorial candidate) Joe Vogler and running-mate Al "Walking Tall" Rowe. And how about the public pronoucements of somewhat crazy but beloved former Gov. Wally "Wallyworld" Hickel? ("You just can't let nature run wild" was among them.) And how about much of what goes on every day in the Mad-Zoo (Mat-Su, or Matanuska-Susitna) Borough? Alaskans are supposed to be wild and crazy and a little offbeat. There's no point in living here, dealing with all the bad weather and isolation, if you're going to be some kind of Lower 48 robot drudge.

    by alpenglow on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:10:41 PM PDT

    • YO! (0 / 0)

      No need to yell at me in all caps!!! Or to dis the denizens of all other states as "Lower 48 robot drudges."

      Now, if I can put aside all your hollering at me and your insults (which is hard), I can say THANKS for filling in the holes of this story.

      It is true--the press coverage I read of the case was really spotty. Lots of pertinent information was missing. It seemed like much of the debate rested on the assumptions that everyone made regarding when and where this incident took place, and whether it was a school sponsored event.

      Don't tear out your hair on my account. Why blast me when it's the poor press coverage that led me to make incorrect assumptions? Sheesh.

      by Amy on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:49:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • DOUBLE YO (0 / 0)

      WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG TO FILL ALL OF US ROBOT DRUDGES IN?  oh and by the way, thanks, that really clears things up -- perhaps you should be a reporter.

      karen

      by karen m on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:28:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • you forgot the (0 / 0)

        LOWER 48 bit, Karen!

        by Rachel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:38:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • oh yea...DARN (0 / 0)

          i think "alpenglow" could be more aptly named alpentirade...but that's just me, and i'm a LOWER 48 ROBOT DRUDGE. LOL

          karen

          by karen m on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:58:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Sorry about the caps and the tirade (0 / 0)

            Really, that's not aimed at you guys. I love Mothertalkers and everybody on it, especially for the civil and intelligent discourse. That pulling my hair out and caps and all is more for the discussion elsewhere (also the Lower 48 robot drudge comment -- really aimed at the Ken Starr vision of the world, you know. Not aimed at Mothertalkers! You know, Ken Starr would have a heart attack about every five minutes if he hung out with a cross-section of irreverent Alaskans).
            Now that I'm no longer tearing my hair out, I'll fill in a little more.
            It's possible that the Supreme Court will just say, hey, this had nothing to do with the school, principal overstepped her authority, case dismissed, no need to address any First Amendment questions. But if the justices do want to take on the free-speech questions, here's pretty much how things are going down and/or likely to go down:
            -- Ken Starr et al are arguing that public schools have the right to restrict speech, even off-campus, off-school-hours speech, if said speech interferes with the schools' educational mission, including the anti-drug mission. They say this banner contradicted that mission, so Principal Skinner, er, Morse, was correct in her actions, even though the event and timing were unrelated to the school.
            -- Bart Simpson, er, Frederick, argued that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was meaningless nonsense, and as meaningless nonsense was not contrary to or supportive of any educational mission whatsoever, including an anti-drug mission.
            -- If "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" did have any real meaning, it would be subject to interpretation. It could just as easily be seen as a sarcastic criticism of potheads as anything (actually, that's the way it struck me when I first saw pics of the sign way back in 2002 -- that it was an affectionate poke at certain Alaskans we all know and love, like a guy who has named himself "Matanuska" after Matanuska-grown weed). If it is seen as supportive of pot or potheads, well, in Alaska, that counts as political speech, given our history of marijuana politics.
            -- According to the 9th Circuit, the principal and schools in general do have the right to restrict speech if it's disruptive to school activities, but this particular prank was harmless and not disruptive. It was especially harmless and non-disruptive if the slogan was meaningless, the 9th Circuit said. If it was actually meaningful, then it qualified as political speech and is thus protected, the 9th Circuit said.
            -- The idea that schools can restrict students' speech anytime, anywhere if it supposedly interferes with the educational mission (the Starr argument) is an overbroad and inappropriate power, according to the 9th Circuit. It could prohibit students from talking about hunting and the NRA (a conflict with anti-gun mission of schools) and lots of other subjects, including, specifically, the details of the Alaska Supreme Court's Ravin decision that made it legal for residents to possess and use small amounts of marijuana.
            -- The above concept of restricting students' speech is getting many conservative and religious activists upset. They worry that a school can come along and punish some kid for, say, pariticpating in anti-abortion activities or some other cause, even outside of school hours and away from the school. Thus you have the alliance between the ACLU and the conservative Christians.
            -- Things may be different for private schools. Private schools may be on firmer legal grounds if they want to punish students for off-campus, non-school-related speech. Still, I think even that would be shaky.
            -- And, back to my hair-tearing phase, one of the things that really got my goat about the discussion of this case (elsewhere, not on Mothertalkers!) was that many people kept saying that because teachers were present and students were present and they were standing around together, that made the torch run some kind of school-sanctioned event. But in Juneau, you always find yourself hanging around with all kinds of people who have various roles in your life. It's not that big a town. Just because you find yourself grocery shopping with the governor or the speaker of the House, for example, that doesn't make the grocery shopping a state government-sanctioned event.

            by alpenglow on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:25:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • One more piece of Alaska trivia (0 / 0)

              Several years ago, there was a popular slogan in Alaska, especially in Juneau, that said: "Pot Got More Votes than Hickel." I think I still have a bumper-sticker somewhere.
              Now, "Pot Got More Votes than Hickel" could be intrepreted in different ways -- pot good, Hickel bad, Alaskans crazy, who knows. But I have to wonder what would have happened if Frederick had dug up one of those oldie-but-goodie signs.

              by alpenglow on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:31:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Thanks for the clarification (0 / 0)

                Sounds like the 9th Circuit got it right.

                And Ken Starr is an ass, as always. (Though I never doubted that!) I was a teenage pothead, so the whole "anti-drug mission" part of this case seemed farcical.

                by Amy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:40:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Permalink | 84 comments