It requires intellect and legal knowledge to navigate through the smoke and mirrors of Supreme Court decision-making. Last Monday, the Supreme Court heard a high school boy from Alaska defend his waving of a banner with the ever-so-cryptic message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the Olympic torch passed through Juneau five years ago. His principal promptly suspended him for ten days on the grounds that this sign was disruptive and promoted illegal behavior. Although the student admittedly had no point displaying the banner (he probably was not too clear-headed), the Supreme Court ought not let this case become a precedent to slowly but surely narrow the scope of the First Amendment.
Although the banner may not have been especially tasteful, the school board's position that it was offensive is rather weak. Kenneth Starr, the attorney representing the school board, argued that the 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District gave the precedent to allow high schools to restrict lewd or disruptive speech. In the present case, there are no reports that the banner caused mass chaos or neighborhood riots.
More than that, though, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is nothing more than nonsensical, much less lewd. Regardless, it is not clear where and when Americans won the right not to be offended. Some people are understandably offended by racist remarks. Others, like myself, find the smell emanating from their brothers' cleats offensive. Clearly the "offensive" defense does not hold much water.
When the Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler started his argument with the claim that schools do "not have to tolerate a message that is inconsistent with its basic educational [mission]" (Justice Alito cut him off before he could finish), it was clear why the Bush administration entered the case on the side of the principal -- they want public schools to be able to squelch any form of political dissent, especially particularly annoying social issues like debate over the legalization of marijuana.
No matter how much Bush would like to have a nation of lemmings who never disagree with policy, schools cannot be given such broad jurisdiction over the lives of young people. Schools exist for education, not social and moral engineering.
What is most "offensive" about this case is the backhanded way in which the prosecution is attempting to erode the fundamentally American right to protest. Starr contended students shouldn't be allowed to advocate anything illegal. Clearly he hasn't realized activists have been doing this since the nation's founding.
Less activist citizens may still argue that unfurling a banner like this one as the Olympic torch passes should not be condoned, and that students should protest in a more tasteful, respectful manner. Perhaps. But the whole point of a protest is to get attention, and passing around a petition at the event certainly would not have gotten notice by the national media and Supreme Court.
Clearly this case is about the parameters of the First Amendment and how they apply to schools. The most disturbing words to echo through the Court came from none other than the mouth of Chief Justice John Roberts. He innocently reflected, "I mean, why is it that the classroom ought to be a forum for political debate simply because the students want to put that on their agenda?" This unabashed, callous disregard for free thought and political activism among our youth ought to give every American pause.
Perhaps Roberts longs for the era where government was conducted by a handful of aged white elites, not the unwashed masses -- much less young people. Regardless of Roberts' opinion, the Supreme Court should rule that of all places, schools should entertain political engagement.
Marta Cook is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at mcook@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
