Student Commentary: Where Does School Authority End? Bong Hits 4 Jesus

When a student hoisted a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in the air, his actions triggered a Supreme Court ruling that may affect the rights of students to express themselves in public schools. Nicola Kronstadt explores the case and its implications for students and teachers alike.

Where Does School Authority End? Bong Hits 4 Jesus

An editorial posted September 23, 2007.

Free speech is a crucial, but fragile right in our system of government. Indeed, there is no more important freedom than the one that empowers us to criticize and disagree with the decisions of our political leaders. Nonetheless, the scope of the right is an ongoing question; it is shaped by circumstances that have occurred in society. Where do we as a people draw the line between someone's opinion and something potentially harmful?  

People can misuse their right to voice opinions freely; because of this, not everything publicly expressed can be protected under the First Amendment. A recent case involving a high school student, a banner, and a principal has provided insight into the limits of the right to free speech. 
 
In Morse vs. Frederick, an 18-year-old student, hoping to make an impression on friends and other viewers, hoisted a banner reading, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in the air as the Olympic torch passed by his high school. Though not on school grounds at the time, the student was approached by the school's principal who confiscated the banner. In addition, the student was suspended from school for 10 days because his actions violated the school's anti-drug-promotion policy.  

Later, the student protested claiming that his civil rights had been violated by this discipline. Thus, the student argued that his right to free speech trumped the school's claimed need to stop pro-drug advertising.  

A federal district court -- the first level of the judicial branch -- ruled in favor of the school principal. It concluded that the principal had a right to take action because it was a school-administered event, and the banner directly violated the school's policies being enforced at the event.  

The student appealed to the next level of the judicial system -- the Court of Appeals. That court, composed of three judges, overruled the trial court and found that the school could not show that the student, Frederick, had disrupted the school's educational mission by showing a banner off campus (a standard set by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a 1969 decision ruling that it was okay for students to wear anti-war armbands to school because it was not disruptive to the school's overall educational goal). 

The Morse vs. Frederick case was then reviewed by our country's highest court -- the Supreme Court. There, the nine justices were split 6-3 in favor of the school principal. The majority concurred with the original ruling by the federal district court and agreed that the banner went against school policy during an event where it was being enforced.  

The three dissenting justices disagreed. They wrote that the banner, though it had used drug terminology, was not intended to direct students to do drugs, and was merely trying to grab the attention of the television crews set up to film the torch passing.  
 
Morse vs. Frederick is one of many free speech debates that have put the minds of our country's judges to work. Where should the line be drawn between a public display of words and a school's ability to be an authority? The issue is particularly interesting because the act of speech did not occur on school grounds. But, it occurred right next to the grounds, and was directed to students on those grounds.  

What about a case in which the act of speech occurs well away from school grounds? For example, what about speech by a student on his or her home computer or MySpace page that concerns a school matter? 
 
Last year, a student at a California middle school posted a picture of a teacher on the student's MySpace page. Under the photograph he added a caption that stated that this teacher was a "pedophile." A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. The teacher had no history of pedophilia, nor had he incurred any charges related to the student's accusations. The school acted swiftly and firmly; the student was expelled.  

The apparent rationale for the expulsion was that the student had written an ugly, untrue and extremely harmful thing that went to the core of a teacher's fitness to teach. Thus, teachers are there to advise, lead, teach and protect students -- not to have sexual contact with them. The comment was all the more hurtful and foolish given the wide attention given lately to the sexual misconduct of many Catholic priests in Los Angeles toward students whom they supervised.  

Should school authorities patrol the Internet? Should they be able to take action against a student who writes something that is school-related in a place that is not linked to the school campus? I don't think so.  

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Morse vs. Frederick, because the students were at a school-administered event where they had been told that school rules and policies applied; therefore, they were in the boundaries of school authority. The Internet, however, when not being used in affiliation with the school or on school grounds, should not be fair playing ground for a school to patrol.  

Although the offense on MySpace was damaging to the teacher, expulsion is too extreme an action to be considered fair to the student. In Morse vs. Frederick, Frederick refused to take down the banner when first asked by the principal; if he had immediately cooperated, as had his fellow banner-bearers, he would not have suffered as severe a fate.  

I feel that similar fairness should have been given to the student who posted the picture on MySpace. Had the school told him to remove the picture immediately, and had he complied, suspension would be an appropriate punishment, simply to make an example for students to come. Had he not taken down the MySpace picture when asked, more severe action could have been taken. The student was not given this option, and therefore, did not have an opportunity to fix his error.  

In Morse vs. Frederick, the banner involved could potentially be harmful to other students by glorifying drug use; however, in the case of the student using MySpace, his joke would not have led to students taking action. If he had written, "Bring drugs to school" or "Weapons are cool to use in school," it would be different, because those phrases could potentially affect other students and lead them to follow the statements.  

Students cannot act on the word -- It was foolish, callous and unfair for the student to have written that a teacher was a pedophile when it was completely false. But, it appears that this was intended to be a joke, albeit a bad one. But, a statement or terrible joke told outside of the campus should not lead to expulsion if it does not have the potential to provoke action in the student body.