Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school’s policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.
The kid appealed the suspension, lost at trial, but won on appeal to the 9th Circuit. Mr. Starr has filed a petition for certiorari with SCOTUS. Apparrently he’s agreed to represent the school district pro bono.
I’d like to know more about the factual circumstances here. What exactly is a “school sanctioned event”? Does sanctioned mean the same as sponsored, like a dance or a football game? If so, then I’m thinking the school district should probably win on appeal to SCOTUS, if they grant certiorari. Schools do have some degree of authority to regulate student conduct at official school events, and a policy against promoting illegal activity at such an event may well be within that authority.
If sanctioned means something else, like maybe this happened at a community event that the school just happened to endorse in some informal way, then the kid should probably win on appeal.
Have my doubts about whether SCOTUS will grant cert on this, as the article indicates the kid was a senior last year. If he’s already graduated, the case may well be moot.
On a somewhat less reverant note, I’ve heard of people dropping acid and claiming to see God. Not sure I’ve ever heard of a deeply religious experience inspired by bong hits…
The article says it was at “an Olympic torch relay in 2002”. That was a nation-wide event, not just organised by a high school in Alaska, so it’s hard to see it as a school activity.
Don’t know that we have enough facts to reach that conclusion. What is the torch was to be passed to another runner as part of a school assembly? Or the school was otherwise particpating in some ceremonial aspect of the relay?
I don’t see how the school could have a leg to stand on. How does “sanctioning” an off-campus event grant a school any jurisdiction over it?
And what kind of BS is this?
What is meant by “educational setting?” How is the running of the Olympic torch an “educational setting” which some random high school has any jurisdiction over? The idea that they’re “protecting” school administrators is a joke. Since when is their “duty” to go around policing the speech of students at at events which have nothing to do with school The argument that the school had “sanctioned” it seems completely fatuous to me. Whatevent could a school NOT sanction? Could a school “sanction” a student’s birthday party and then send administrators to monitor it for “pro-drug” speech? This is just stupid. How could Starr possibly think he has a case here? SCOTUS isn’t really going to listen to this horsehit, is it?
By the way, could this kid possibly have an argument related to religious freedom? Who is the school to say he’s not allowed to express his religious opinion that bong hits should be pounded for Jesus? What do they have against Jesus? Isn’t this just more persecution of Christians?
Hoping a friendly mod will fix the link above. In the meantime, for those interested, the 9th Circuit opinion is Joseph Frederick v. Deborah Morse, Juneau School Board, No. 03-35701.
The 9th Circuit relies on :
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393
U.S. 503, 514 (1969) (holding that students retain First Amendment
expression rights at school, which may be suppressed only if authorities
reasonably “forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with
school activities”).
Apparrently, the students were “released” from class to watch the Torch Relay, and there was some supervision by teachers. The school band and cheerleaders particpated, but there was no effort to prevent students from leaving if they decided to do so. Frederick never even made it to school that day, and unfurled his banner well off the school grounds.
The school was mostly interested in punishing the conduct, and not in any “disruption or material interference with school activities”.
That being the case, I can’t really argue with the 9th Circuit opinion. However, I’m not convinced SCOTUS will see it the same way…
Oooh, wrong idea. He was unfurling a banner, not wearing a crucifix or something. If you bring up religion, he’d probably be banned from taking that action on the basis of a violation of the establishment clause. Would you defend a student who stood up at a pep rally and unfurled a banner with a crucifix on it?
Absolutely. The Establishment Clause doesn’t apply to students as long as they aren’t speaking in some official capacity for the school or appropriating school property (like comaddering a microphone at a football game, for instance). They can unfurl all the banners they want from the stands.
Good for you. But how about the case of a valedictorian who is given (has earned) the right to address the class. If the valedictorian is making his own personal observations and giving advice as to what he thinks will help the class in the future, and firmly believes that a relationship with God is important, should he or should he not be allowed to include such a mention in his personal remarks? Why, or why not?
And I just would like to say that I think comaddering should be a word.
That’s a different situation. A valedictorian is a position appointed by the school, and his speech is given at what is explicitly and solely a school function. Even if the student is speaking from his own beliefs and experiences, the student’s position and the nature of the event give the appearance that the school is endorsing his speech. On top of that, it creates a loophole that could be used to circumvent the establishment cause. If that reasoning can be used to allow a valedictorian can preach during his graduation, what’s to stop the school from hiring Pat Robertson from giving the commencement address, and then claiming that the school just hired him to speak, they didn’t know he was going to talk about all that Jesus stuff? I’d also be concerned that, if a more specific exemption could be crafted to allow valedictorians and only valedictorians to include explicit religious messages in their speeches, you’d see some schoolboards favor evangelical Christians over non-Christians and non-evangelicals because they know the evangelical student will use the event as an opportunity to preach.
I’m kinda hoping SCOTUS grants cert, just to see what they would do with it. I like the Tinker analysis, and I think the fact that the students were free to leave the event mitigates the attempted supervision and involvement of the band/cheerleaders. As described by the Court, it sounds a lot more like a “not school business” situation to me–perhaps analogous to a Mardi Gras parade, where the bands often march, but it is clearly not a “school event”.
Wherever darkness must grow to snuff out the light, wherever there is a right to be wronged, wherever decent people’s lives must be turned into hellish nightmares, there you will find Ken Starr.