Many public high schools place restrictions on the freedoms their students exercise. Where these restrictions conflict with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I believe they are illegal. No difference should exist between the rights of a citizen of the United States when he or she is standing on a street corner and the rights of that same citizen when he or she is in a public school.
First of all, the rights of a minor are derived from his or her parents, not the school administration. Although I question the leeway the government gives parents to control their kids in pretty much every way, that's not the subject of this particular blog. Accepting that kids have the same legal protection as adults (except in a few areas like drinking alcohol) as long as that protection is justified by parental assent, a school can not decide to place limits on its students beyond those which already exist independently of the school.
A public school is a government institution, therefore should act with the same constraints placed on all governmental action, namely that it can not interfere with citizens' Constitutional rights.
Also, the government guarentees free public education through the 12th grade. This means kids have the right to attend school. The government may not force students to waive their other rights while exercising this one.
Obviously the school may regulate student behavior where that behavior directly conflicts with the actual ability of teachers to teach or of students to learn - that is the point where the disruptive student's personal liberty begins to conflict with the right of the other students to an education.
Examples of student rights the school shouldn't interfere with include free expression in writing, behavior, and speech except where such speech interrupts instruction.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The question lies in deciding where a student has crossed the bounds of 'free speech' and stepped into disturbing the education of others.
Is it legitimate for a student to walk down the halls during classtime screaming out obscenties against the principal because they should have the right to freedom of speech? Should they be allowed to hand out pamphlets decrying the current administrative figures and telling students to not listen to them? These are all things we'd be able to do in the *real* world, but not in schools currently.
When one enters a school system they give up some rights in return for a quality education, in a safe environment. There is no real reason that these rights restrictions actually affect students in a negative manner, they only serve to help students and increase their ability to learn and be safe in school. If you're going to make this argument provide a context where students are actually losing rights that negatively hurt them in some manner, while outweighing the fact that they are gaining an education.
The first example, no. Such speech can be limited because it interferes with the education. My original post includes the stipluation "except where such speech interrupts instruction."
The second example, yes. Distributing a pamphlet is peaceful and doesn't interrupt or block education. The pamphlet can criticize the administration. If it provides a plan to attack the principal with sticks, then there is a clear and present danger. But if it is general criticism or advocates peaceful protest, it is protected. I don't see why these standards should be any more harsh in school.
The point is, most of these rights don't interfere with an education. There's no reason TO sacrifice them. Their inherent value is reason enough to preserve them.
It's important to teach students about their rights though, and how to responsibly exercise them. If the students don't get the opportunity to become accustomed to publicly exercising their rights, they can not be given advice on how to do so responsibly.
Also, the ability to speak and write freely is central to learning. Free discussion of any and all issues that come up, whether the administration finds them offensive or not, is key to make students feel comfortable speaking their minds on issues that are more relevent. Also, issues like criticism of the administration are relevent in themselves, because they can lead to positive change.
Particularly in writing, the marketplace of ideas demands that none be censored, anywhere. Only a clear and present danger of criminal action is reason enough to censor written material. In such a system, anyone with no criminal intent can feel truly free to advocate a concept they feel is right, and to oppose a concept they feel is wrong. Progress in society is based on the ability to rapidly discard bad ideas and build up good ones.
Also, free expression in school is key training for tolerance of conflicting ideas later in life. School is the perfect place to teach kids how to express themselves peacefully and rationally. Outside of school, the "peaceful" element of that is dificult to enforce, so why not give students the full opportunity to become accustomed to peaceful expression before they are thrown into the wide world of ideas without experience dealing with it?
I am in search for exactly what you are writing about, however, it does not state what would be considered self expression of the first amendment.
I am a mother of a teen who wears long hair. That is a privlage for him as long as he makes good grades.
We are now facing a situation that angers me to no end. The "Coaches" right to descretion of rule making. He has told my son if he is REALLY serious about playing baseball (and has not even tried out yet, they are in training) that he would have to cut his hair. I view his hair as self expression in the peaceful sense. It does not harm another student, it does not hurt to simply allow him to put his hair in a ponytail to play ball.
They have given me every excuse but what the real issue is...discrimination.
I was even told that safety was an issue...however, women play sports and they are allowed to have long hair.
I believe this coach is only out for his personal expression of how HIS team should portray his personal belief's
The letter I received today basically states if you don't adhere to his belief's you don't play ball.
Long hair certainly doesn't make one less of a serious team player. I believe in individuality. I certainly don't have an issue with his hair..long hair makes him less valuable?
This experience and tomorrow I am sure will be 5 school days my son sits on a bench while those who cut their hair are playing. My son says he deserves to play regardless. As parent's we back the issue.
The fight continues. Tomorrow I am taking the no nonsense approach.
Great article.
Stephanie Schultz-Houston Texas
heppystephy@yahoo.com
Like i was taught in criminal justice class, there is not such thing as ABSOLUTE free speech. Laws are made to protect us. Should a student be able to wear a shirt were he bashes another race in school? wHY NOT? Because the kids of that race will beat the crap out of him.
Precisely... There's also the legal technicality that the students in a public school system are usually minors, (with the exception of those who are 18 and over) thus they technically have no legal right to freedom of speech within an educational environment.
Here's another example of how Constitutional rights are limited all the time, and in the public schools: Students and teachers are not allowed to carry guns onto school grounds, and if a student is found with a gun, there's a zero-tolerance policy and the student will be expelled. But there's the second amendment that gives us the right to arm ourselves, right? Well, consider what happened at Columbine High School, and it's pretty obvious why the second amendment does not apply to those in the public school system. I go to a public university in GEORGIA and we have permits saying that we can't even have guns in our dorms, and we are all above the legal age to buy guns. WHY, then are we not allowed to bring them in? Because of safety issues!
I know, and I'm not sure I believe that technicality should be a part of our legal system. Why should basic civil rights be denied to someone based on age?
I do understand that it may be important to grant legal guardians some degree of control, but deriving all civil rights from them seems a bit extreme. Even if that situation is entirely accepted, though, that still doesn't justify anyone other than the legal guardian imposing such restrictions.
That said, I understand that the government needs to apply restrictions on certain rights as they're exercised on government property. Those restrictions should not extend beyond necessity, though. Certain rights, like free expression in writing, or possession of materials that fall into that category, are in almost all cases benign for legal purposes. Some schools try to restrict posession of certain books, for example. I know of a school in Florida that stole (I refuse to use the term 'confiscated' - this was blatant theft) a book from a teenage student because it contained sexual references.
Restrictions on guns are a matter of safety, and the government should be allowed to ban them on certain parts of government property. I would include schools, post offices, etc. in this category.
I'll have to come back to this, I'm running out of time tonight.
I forgot to come back to it until I just stumbled across my footnote right now. I do think legal guardians should have control over their children's rights to a point. That control should (in theory) diminish with age, although law cannot guarentee this in most cases. But my position on the school issue is still that the government has no right to take away kids' ordinary civil rights as a condition of school attendance.
No, there is no perfectly absolute right. But there are rights that come very close. The stipulations on free speech should be nothing more than "clear and present danger" and libel (with malicious intent).
I'm not sure I would agree with an institutional ban on racist clothing in schools. If the kids beat the crap out of him, good for them, he got what he deserved. Though I'd prefer they didn't, since it is a more powerful message to ostracise without violence - then the deterrent isn't physical.
Then again, racist clothing would probably be a distraction in the classroom.
I'm not sure on this particular example. Thoughts, anyone?
Here's another blog on an interesting freedom of speech case going on where I go to school:
http://www.progressiveu.org/140937-free-speech-at-georgia-tech
---
Emily
Georgia Tech
School of Public Policy
This is a great blog!
I think the first time I actually swore in front of my mother, I was about 7. I used the word "shit" and I got grounded, and after about a week (?) my mother asked me if I was sorry. I said no. So then we got to talking. She finally figured out that the reason I wasn't sorry was because I had no idea what I did wrong. So, she asked me if I knew what the word meant; again I said no.
Then, trying to be smart, my mother instituted a new rule. This new rule said that I could not use a word unless I knew what it meant.
So what did I, as a smart-ass child always trying to out-think her mother, do? I searched every where for every swear word I could find, and asked about those I could not find, until I knew what they meant.
About a year later, in school, I used the word "bitch" (it was in passing, I didn't call anyone that name. What 8 year old can accurately be called a bitch?) My teacher was furious and dragged me by the ear to the principal's office.
Now, at the time, they still had corporal punishment in Colorado Springs, so, you guessed it, I got paddled. In front of everyone. Then I got suspended. They called my mother in school and told her what happened and told her to come get me. My mother came to the school bright red. She didn't even talk to the principal at first, she turned straight to me and asked what I said. I told her, and she asked what it meant, and I told her (the dictionary definition of a female dog). Then she asked how I used it, so I told her the sentence:
When I get home from school today, we're going to pick up a bitch.
She flew off the handle at the teacher and the principal. She actually grabbed the paddle and started swinging at them! Looking back, I'm amazed she never got in trouble for assault or anything. It was the first time I remember my mother ever fighting for me against anyone. She threatened to sue if they ever undermined her teachings again. Needless to say, the suspension was taken away.
Of course, that afternoon when I got home I got to learn about *when* to use these words...
----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
Wow, interesting story. I'm proud of your mother. She is not apathetic, she is able to assess a situation, and she stands up for what's right.
I'm horrified that they used corporal punishment, especially in this case where it is clearly not in any way logically tied to the perceived crime. When was this?
Oh, this was during the early 80s, like 82 or 83. If I remember correctly, Colorado didn't get rid of corporal punishment statewide until 85. Prior to that some schools still practiced, but the state finally banned it.
Last I heard, Oklahoma was the only state that still does not have a law against corporal punishment. But I haven't been able to verify that, so I'm really not sure.
----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
I'm trying to figure out exactly how the bill of right's is interfereing with student's rights. Then only ones I can remember from school was that:
1. the administration had the right to search our lockers without our consent, but then that got banned. I can't remember why...
2. some things couldn't be put in our newspapers. They even still do that in some colleges.
3. no derogatory or racial parphenalia could be worn. This one I can understand. You don't want anybody to come to school with a naked person on their shirt or the rebel flag on a hat. This would be distracting and hurtful. My junior high's mascot was rebels and the onld mascot used to be a white man running with a rebel flag. They got rid of it before I got to the school, but they felt that it would be offensive to the minority population. The school used to be an all white high school before integration...
I don't really have too much to say, but I think that the schools may be infringing on student's rights for the student's safety as well as the teachers.
It is legitimate for schools to limit students' rights inasmuch as it is necessary for safety or to maintain an effective learning environment, just as it is legitimate for other governmental organizations to limit certain rights on their grounds to do their jobs. But many schools (and some flawed Supreme Court precedents) argue that they can entirely define the rights of their students, because they are minors. This is wrong.
Censoring newspapers or other writing is unconstitutional. A school can deny funding to a student newspaper that it doesn't want to endorse, but it can not ban the paper. Any public school (or college) that does so is out of line. Private schools and colleges, of course, can do what they want, but no child of mine is ever going to any private school that would do such a thing.
Naked people on shirts can be banned, because they meet a very clear description of distracting and because they violate public decency. Sexual language probably should not be banned, because it's not objectively distracting unless it's explicitly pornographic. Things like the confederate flag (I assume you mean that) can be left up to regional discretion, because it may carry more direct connotations in the south than in the north. (I don't think it would be banned here.) Some things schools do are more problematic, though, such as my school's seemingly arbitrary ban on drug-related insignia.
But what I had in mind more when I wrote this were issues related to written speech under the First Amendment, such as banning possession of certain private publications in various schools, as well as oral speech that doesn't interfere with the classroom order. Examples are all over the place; the first couple that come to my head are a local school that confiscated copies of a student newspaper which contained sexual language and denounced the administration, and a more distant school that confiscated a book from a student because it allegedly contained sexual content (it was not frivolously sexual, but even if it had been I argue it would have been protected property).
Really this post is directed at the general concept schools seem to have that they have discretion over students' rights, when that authority actually lies with the legal guardians.
I wasn't saying that I don't see how the student's rights were being violated; i just meant that I didn't know how, because I have lack of knowledge of the bill of rights exactly.
I see your point. I know of one private college that destroyed their newspapers because it had disclosed information that the cafe's sanitary records were sub-par. I thought that was outrageous. The same school has done other things as well such as confiscating id cards while a group of students were handing out pamphlets with information of AIDS and against Bush. They claimed they did this because the students didn't follow the rules on how they hand out such literature...
I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. ~Booker T. Washington