At a school sponsored event, the principal saw students holding a banner that said "Bong hits 4 Jesus", which she thought promoted illegal drug use. Morse (the principal) directed the student to take it down, and he refused. Morse took the banner away and suspended the student. Superintendent agreed, as did the school board. Frederick (the student) filed suit alleging the school board and Morse violated his first amendment rights. The district court sided with the principal, but the decision was later overturned by the 9th Circuit Court. They held that the school punished Frederick without proving that his speech was truly disruptive. They also stated that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick's rights to display the banner were established, and that Morse should have known that what she was doing was unconstitutional.
Supreme court overturned the ruling and held that schools must take care to safeguard students from speech with encourages illegal drug use, and that school officials did not violate Frederick's first amendment. They stated that Frederick was in fact "at school" and that a principal may restrict student speech at school events that can be reasonably viewed as promoting drug use.
I completely agree with the actions of the principal, and if I had been in the same situation as the principal, I would have acted in the same manner. I am thankful that the Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Circuit Court because it would have been a devastating blow to a principal's power in a school had they not. It will be our duty as principals to do what we think is the best for ALL students, even it it means one student doesn't get to say everything he or she wants to say. If this one student had gotten away with it, where would the next banner have said?? With the responsibility of principal must come some liberty to stop behaviors that are not conducive to a safe learning enviornment.
Posted by Kiska
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I completely agree with the blogger in this case. If the Supreme Court would not have reversed the previous ruling, school administrators would have lost a lot of power when it comes to discipline in schools. Although, Fredrick displayed the banner as a show of his freedom of speech, he needed to understand that our freedom of speech is free only if it does not disrupt or offend. In this case, he was promoting legal drug usage at a school event. He violated school policy and therefore deserved the reprimand and suspension. Morse was quick on her feet, and put the fire out quickly. As principals we will have to be able to act on a moments notice and hopefully do so within the rights of the constitution.
posted by doglover
cdedad:
I have to side with the blogger and with the Supreme Court in this case also. All to often, students try to use the "free speech" excuse to say whatever they want whenever and wherever without fully understanding the reasoning behind the first amendment. In today's society, some people get upset or offended by statements that others feel are perfectly harmless. When these statements lead to fights or other incidents of violence or promoting improper behavior among students, it is the school's responsibility to keep thse things under control. The best way to do that is keeping them from happening in the first place.
As a teacher and a future administrator I agree with the blogger and the court. Morse did not have a right to promote the sale of drugs at or near school property. Yes, his freedom of speech was being squelched however for the safety of the public, the principal did the correct response by removing the banner and the student. She, the principal, had asked the young man to put the banner away but he refused. He had the option of pushing the situation and did. For this he was punished and removed form classes. I believe the principal had all legal rights to perform these actions. Fredrick was creating an unsafe environment on school grounds and was promoting the sale of drugs, which is illegal.
I find the Supreme Court ruling protects our school from unsafe conditions and places an official guardianship on principals, administrators, teachers and school personal. It allows them right to protect schools and students in the best ways we can. Sometimes that may mean a principal will have to make a fast, ethical or moral judgment which my upset or deprive someone of something. Just remember that principal was looking out for the safety of what they thought was “all students”.
Posted by: jagem
I agree with the blogger and the Supreme court as well. Although we need to allow students a certain level of freedoms, when they infringe upon the rights of others or when they cause obvious disruptions it can definitely be detrimental to the way in which a school functions. If the administration of a school is not allowed to determine what is appropriate for the students to view then who knows what the students will come up with next. As an administrator one of my responsibilities will be to ensure that my school has a safe and orderly environment for learning. While I am all for freedom of speech, expression...etc....I also believe that we need to ensure that students are learning the appropriate forum for these freedoms to be expressed.
posted by 1995frog
I agree with the blogger and the court. The 9th Circuit Court tends to be very liberal in cases of free speech and religion. Therefore it was refreshing to see a judge strictly interpret the law and apply it without cowtowing to the free speech crowd that would allow anyone to say anything anywhere. Time and place played a huge role in this in that it was during a school function in front of lowerclassmen who might see that banner as the school agreeing with illegal drug use.
On my campus I will be vigilant for disruptive and vulgar free speech but will allow non-confrontational free speech that does not offend or disrupt the educational day.
Posted by Fat Boy SLim
guilo10:
I agree with the blogger and the Supreme Court on this ruling. I also agree with the blogger about what would the next sign say. How many string of the rope can be clipped before the rope breaks. This ruling enforced power of the school districts decision. Most decision as an administrator will be made when the action happens. We won't be able to sleep on it, and make a decision on what to do the next day.
But if he was standing on the other side of the road, not amongst his fellow students, wasn't 'on school time,' and was just holding the same sign. I really don't think that any school staff could have taken any action, and it be upheld.
I think we all will agree that the school does need help from the courts if we are going to have any control over our students when they are outside the walls of the school. The principal acted quickly and correctly even if the courts did not agree. Thats what adults should do. Some kids will always act the fool. Thats fine. Let them. But when it becomes a school problem or a danger or distraction to others the adults need to step in. THis law is a good support tool for administrators and a good example to use with parents who also sometime like to act the fool.
RumRunner
I agree with the blogger and the court. The student was not in 'attendance' that day, but showed up at a school function, therefore, I think he was simply 'tardy'. The principal asked him to put the banner away and he refused. She did what was necessary in order to protect the morals and values that school disctricts are asked to teach/uphold and prevented the advertising of illegal substances. As a principal, I will allow free speech as long as it does not infringe upon other students rights to learn and the rights to a safe/orderly environment.
by: kido5150
Post a Comment