NewsFuture, published by The Media Center focuses on critical issues and trends in online and multi-platform publishing.
Roundtable offers collections of insights and ideas from the American Press Institute.
Be the first to know about the newest seminars and training opportunities from API.
Receive the CyberJournalist Report, a monthly newsletter packed with tips, headlines and great work.
The newsletter features search tips, new resources and other news and notes of interest to the journalism, research, academic and online communities.
Newspaper Next The Learning Newsroom Journalists' Toolbox API Home
Have You Moved?

Send us an update!

Join our mailing list!
Email:

Coming to API
Discussion Leaders
Thomas Silvestri
Thomas A. Silvestri
President and Publisher, Richmond Times-Dispatch

Appearing at:
Strategic Leadership: Making Radical Change Happen
05/12/2008 - 05/15/2008
Transforming the Newsroom
07/14/2008 - 07/16/2008
Seminar Schedule
Find Seminars

Early-bird Deadlines

Register soon for early-bird savings:

» Designing the Digital Experience

7/14 - 7/16/2008

» Transforming the Newsroom

7/14 - 7/16/2008

» Benchmarks and Drivers of Bottom-Line Success

8/4 - 8/7/2008

» Managing the Weekly Newspaper

9/8 - 9/11/2008


Bong hits and student journalism issues

Print this article Discuss
By Warren Watson
July 31, 2007 10:01 AM

E-mail to a friend Print this article


The Supreme Court is once again playing keepaway with the U.S. Constitution, reducing the First Amendment rights of our sons and daughters in a quirky case that threatens to create a less-democratic environment in our public schools.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court, in Morse v. Frederick, a case involving a cryptic student banner (and labeled as "oddball" by The New York Times), last month whittled away at 38 years of legal precedent and further restricted the First Amendment rights of our students.

The 5-4 decision, marked by angry rhetoric on both sides of the issue, represented another aberration from 1969 when the high court boldly proclaimed in Tinker v. Des Moines that there should be no age restrictions when it comes to free speech and that student First Amendment rights don't stop at the schoolhouse gate.

Over the last 19 years, the Republican-influenced court has told our students their speech must be civil at all times (Bethel vs. Fraser, 1986). They have told students that their newspapers are subject to arbitrary censorship by their principals (Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier, 1988). Now, in the latest case, dubbed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus, the Supreme Court has told students they are prohibited from speech that might - just might -- be construed as advocating drug use.

Yes, sad times for those who believe that there should be no age limits on free speech, the most important plank in the structure of our Constitution.

And, if the court's whittlers have their way, free speech will be taken away altogether.

Clarence Thomas, the conservative jurist, said "it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment freedom of speech encompasses a student's right to speak in public schools." He talked about the old days when "teachers commanded and students obeyed."

Such blunderbuss.

Thank goodness many of the nation's newspapers, bloggers and commentators believe the court - at least Thomas - has overreached this time.

But real optimism that this court activity may be checked sooner rather later comes from the West Coast - in Oregon. Hope radiated from the Oregon state house on Friday, July 13, as Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed a historic law guaranteeing free-expression rights to the state's high school and college journalists.
The law is a start, trumping most of the high court's abuses. It shows that not all citizens believe in the ways of the Roberts Supreme Court. In fact, six other states already have such laws and others are being considered in a wide variety of states, including Vermont, Michigan, North Carolina and Indiana. If written broadly enough in the future, these state laws will effectively negate the Supreme Court's efforts to strip away free speech for our young citizens.

First Amendment and civics advocates see the law as significant and one that might jump-start those similar efforts. In Michigan, a free-expression bill received a big boost earlier this week with the endorsement by the Detroit Free Press, the state's largest newspaper.

There is further optimism from academia. The president of a major Midwest university has spoken out against the censorship of student journalists at a high school near Fort Wayne, Indiana. Jo Ann Gora, Ball State's president, called the muzzling and discipline of a .teacher - Amy Sorrell - a "dark cloud" over the school "Strangely," Gora said, "her (Sorrell) belief in the importance of promoting tolerance led to her punishment."

Bad news. Good news. Such is the tenuous world of the First Amendment in a society bending to the right on the national stage.

The young minds of today's students are shaped by dialogue and ideas and viewpoints and facts and critical thinking. Kids learn by studying and debating. Young minds must be exposed to an open forum of ideas and issues.

This is how democracy works. This is why students must enjoy the same First Amendment protection as their mothers and fathers.

Yes, a young mind is like a parachute. It functions fully and properly only when it's open.

Warren Watson is director of J-Ideas, a national First Amendment institute in the Department of Journalism, College of Communication, Information and Media at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. J-Ideas supports excellence in student journalism, First Amendment awareness and news literacy. Watson was a 31-year journalist before joining Ball State in 2004.



Email this article

Please enter your friend's e-mail address

Please enter your e-mail address

If you would like to include a message, please add it here:

Comments

Are states really going to pass laws that allow public high school students to promote the use of illegal drugs at school? I'd be shocked. It would go against most public high schools' written student conduct policies and against most state school board associations' model codes.

Keep this in mind: All of the justices agreed that the Juneau School Board's rule against promoting illegal substances was a permissible rule. The Court only disagreed with whether the principal's interpretation of the banner's message was "reasonable." A narrow ruling. Also interesting that the superintendent, all members of the school board, the chief judge of the federal district court in Alaska, all three judges on the 9th Circuit panel, and a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court all accepted the principal's interpretation that the banner was a promotion of marijuana. Only Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg disagreed. If the dissenters had their way, it would open the door to a great deal more federal judicial intervention in student discipline at local public high schools. That would have been a far more radical decision.

I can only conclude that anyone who labels the majority opinion in Morse v. Frederick as a "threat" giving rise to "sad times," is, well, a blunderbuss.

It was not about promoting drug use, Mike, but about making a philosophical and political point. The student did not say "everybody take bong hits," which would have been promoting drug use.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)