Trotwood-Madison vs. Winton Woods
2009-10 UD men's basketball
Pyramid Hill lights up
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > December > 03 > Entry
Court to hear “bong hits 4 Jesus?”
You know, sometimes cases that make it to the U.S. Supreme Court just make you scratch your head. But this one is in league of its own.
A high school kid in Alaska in the audience as the Olympic torch runs by holds up a sign that says “Bong hits 4 Jesus” trying to get on T.V. and earns a 10-day suspension even though he was on his own time and nowhere near the school or any sort of school function. (Thanks to my good pal Frank Lockwood, the Bible Belt Blogger and religion writer for the Lexington (Ky) Herald-Leader for alerting me to this story.)
This little prank has opened quite a can of worms.
The principal justified the suspension by saying the kid was promoting drug use with the sign. But was he? As Lockwood points out, nobody seems to even know what he meant by the sign, or if it even meant anything other than “show me on T.V.”
San Francisco’s notoriously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals sided with the kid, ruling the school violated his right to free speech. (This is the same court that ruled “under God” should be taken out of the pledge of allegiance a couple years ago before being over ruled by the Supremes.) Oh, and arguing the case for the school district is Ken Starr. Yes, THAT Ken Starr, the Bill Clinton Whitewater/Monicagate prosecutor.
As goofy as this case is, there is one thing about it that I find interesting. Where does a school’s authority to regulate a student’s behavior end? This is a murky area. Certainly public schools can regulate behavior of students at school or those involved in a school-sponsored activity. But what about students who are entirely on their own time but do something that is not illegal but that school officials find embarrassing? What about behavior of a student in his or her private home that is publicly revealed? What about students’ public comments and actions on the Internet?
Any ideas on how and where to draw this line?
Permalink | Comments (10) | Categories: Schools and Politics
Comments
By Dave
December 5, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
DSP Teacher, the blog actually says it was a “school sanctioned” event, not a “school sponsored” event. But I’m not sure what that means. If the school just told students it was a good idea to attend, then I side with the student. But if the school let them off school, or provided transportation, then the school MIGHT be within their rights to punish him.By dsp teacher
December 5, 2006 8:13 AM | Link to this
I believe the student was participating in a school sponsored activity, as stated in the blog, which, I believe, puts a different spin on the subject. Most public schools do not allow students to wear clothing that advertises alcohol and cigarettes.By lou
December 4, 2006 3:50 PM | Link to this
Mary, I agree with you. I would not tolerate this in my classroom but outside of the school building it is freedom. We must protect our rights at all cost. The school was wrong for giving cosequences.By Terri
December 4, 2006 3:38 PM | Link to this
I agree that the school in Alaska stepped out of bounds in the specific case described. How about if he was wearing a t-shirt with same slogan on it at school?By Scott Elliott
December 4, 2006 2:00 PM | Link to this
Zack, all I said was the court was notoriously liberal. I didn’t characterize their decision one way or the other. But perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “notorious.” I didn’t intend the negative connotation. I simply meant that the court is well known for its liberal bent and has been at the center of some hot controversies.By Scott Elliott
December 4, 2006 1:51 PM | Link to this
Thanks to Sherman for the editing catch. I’ve fixed the “its.”By Zack
December 4, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Since when is ruling that a government-sponsored public school has no right to interfere with an individual’s outside activities a “notoriously liberal” idea? Sounds pretty conservative — or at least libertarian — to me.By Oldprof
December 4, 2006 9:01 AM | Link to this
Interesting? I find it appalling; why are we not acting like good Americans and screaming “Nazi!” at this school’s principal and superintendent? Or at least “buffoon”. Education at this level demands the freedom to express unpopular opinion and to debate it openly, and so these simpletons are not only spitting on the constitution, they’re interfering with learning. If the boy was actively involved in the drug trade then there would be cause for concern, but reasonable people disagree on what constitutes a harmful drug and what we should do about them. The school ought to encourage exploring the facts and opinions of all side, rather than trying to be “thought police”.By Mary
December 4, 2006 8:01 AM | Link to this
I am among those who do not know what the student meant by the sign,but in no case should the school have inserted itself and punished him for exercising his constitutional and legal right of freedom of expression. It is really scary how ignorant people are - particularly those in authority such as a school principal - of our basic constitutional rights. Schools are supposed to be teaching these democratic and constitutional principles. In the past year, I have personally been involved in two cases where those in authority, including government officials, tried to restrict my (and others’) freedom of expression. Recently, a home owners association president near Denver, tried to order a homeowner to remove a wreath on their private home because it had a peace symbol in it. As I recall, the home owners association committee was fired because they did not go along with the home owners association president’s methods. It seems our culture is dangerously close to tolerating dictatorships , particulary on matters that involve basic free speech. The Supreme Court ruled on the pledge of allegiance as a technicality of child custody, not on the constitutionality of the pledge. That is a dangerous cop out by the Supreme Court because of the also dangerous public hysteria and ignorance of why that father had a case on the separation of church and state. We have lost a basic and common understanding of our democratic laws and principles.By Sherman Dorn
December 4, 2006 5:20 AM | Link to this
I don’t know about the case, but you must have been very tired to write that anything is “in league of it’s own.” Don’t you mean “in a league of its own”?