His fondest memory of childhood is being a hall monitor.
Sorry, but I don’t see the distinction between commandeering a microphone and waving a banner. That person on the microphone isn’t speaking in a official capacity, otherwise he wouldn’t have to “commandeer” it.
On the other hand, if he’s not acting in an official capacity, why is he being allowed to disrupt school events? If a kid grabs a microphone at a game and starts shouting, “Iron Maiden rocks!” into it, someone takes the microphone away from him and gives him detention. If a student does the same thing, but with an evangelical message, and is not punished or prevented from using the microphone, then the school could fairly said to be endorsing that student’s views.
The banner doesn’t belong to the school, isn’t paid for by taxpayers and any messages it conveys carry no inplicit endorsement by the school. Using a school PA system to pray at a captive audience either carries that implicit endorsement or, as Miller said is nothing more than a random disruption, in which case the content of the speech is immaterial. Either way, the behavior is impermissible. Students are free to express whatever religious message they want but they can’t enlist the school to help them do it.
It would be very easy for the school to be responsible for a speaker they invited. They would only invite a speaker to such an event if he had gained some fame. And if he is famous, his views would be known. So, the school should be expected to exercise some prudence as to what is said. In the case of the valedictorian, it is an earned honor. He is not chosen. I think the theory is that person, based on his success in school, might have some advice for future success that his classmates and schoolmates could benefit from. If that person feels that his faith played a big role in him getting to that podium, he has every right, maybe even an obligation, to share his thoughts honestly. I understand the hypotheticalyou pose regarding the school “helpinig” and evangelical along, but I find that too far a stretch. I concede it “might” or “could” happen, but I think it too outlandish to want to base any policy on it.
I agree with you on this, but doesn’t the banner also have to be evaluated by the school. If they see it and allow it to stay, aren’t they condoning it?
And while I agree with your main point, I see the valedictorian as the lone exemption (for the reasons I stated in my previous post to Miller). Would you agree?
IIRC, the valedictorian was not punished, but simply had her mic turned down. Also IIRC, she had agree beforehand not to bring up religion and broke that agreement.
So if students are required to agree to refrain from advocating Bong Hits for Jesus, or, indeed, required to agree to refrain from advocating ANY pro-drug message, ahead of time, then restricting their speech if they break the agreement is a legitimate school perogative?
Let me cut to the chase:
Agree or disagree: the barriers a school places against students’ self-initiated religious messages should be greater than the barriers a school places against students’ self-initiated pro-drug messages.
Again, I object to the hijacking of this thread, which is intended to be about the case cited above. The rights of valedictorian speakers regarding delivery of religous messages at graduation are not related to the facts at issue here, and involve the rights of third parties under the establishment clause. Another thread would be a more appopriate venue for that debate. This debate is a free speach issue, without religous complications.
How can anybody be “required to agree” to something? I haven’t seen anything stating that this student agreed to anything.
I think I would although it might be a close call. All such a student could be sanctioned for in my opinion would be a potential disruption of a school activity. But even that would be a stretch I think. The student has a right to unfurl a banner. There would probably be no intent to cause a disruption and the student shouldn’t really be held responsible for the action of some who might object to the point that they would disrupt the event.
She earned the right to share her thoughts. They cannot dictate what those thoughts might be. And I view the turning down of her mic as punishment. They, in essence, excised portions of her remarks. As long as she was not advocating the commission of a crime or “crying fire” or other such exemptions to free speech, and focused her talk things like succesws, hard work, the future, perserverance, etc., they have no right to dictate her speech. For what it’s worth, if a strong Atheist earned the right to be valedictorian, I would feel the same way. If he got up there and shared that he believed that his success was due in part to a purely rationalistic worldview and that he viewed religion as a deterent to clear thinking, I support his right to say so. Although I would agree with him vehemently.
Sorry, Oak.
The relevant court cases about religious content in a valedictory speech are: Cole v. Oroville Union High School Dist. (2000) and Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000). These held that the school can restrict the student’s speeches if they contain religious content. OTOH, in *Adler v. Duval County School * Bd. (2001), a district court in Florida held the exact opposite. See here for a discussion.
Moderator’s Note: The case discussed in this thread (a school taking disciplinary action against a student for a protest banner unfurled at an off-campus “school sanctioned event”) is sufficiently different from the issues raised by speeches given by valedictorians at graduations that I think the valedictorian issue belongs in a separate thread. Anyone who wants to start a thread on valedictorians and free speech and church-state issues and post a link to it in this thread, feel free. Of course, if some previous court decision about valedictorians or some other issue involving freedom of speech and high school students has actual relevance to the debate here, by all means bring it up.
Required in what way?
I couldn’t find the District Court opinion in a quick search. Not sure if there is a published opinion from the District Court. If anyone happens to find a link to it, I’d like to read it.
I’m guessing that Starr will argue Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser should control here, saying that marijuana use is analogous to sexually explicit speach, and thus the Principal was allowed to punish Frederick. The 9th Circuit opinion indicates that was the case relied upon in the District Court, and rejected that line of reasoning. I’d really like to see that argument expanded upon, with citations, etc…which is why I want to read the District Court opinion, if one exists.
The 9th Circuit also mentioned that the banner could be considered a political statement of a sort, noting that Alaska has had multiple referendums on marijuana in relatively recent times. Not sure how much weight this should carry. Frederick pretty much admitted that the whole thing was just a stunt, trying to get his sign on TV. He doesn’t seem to be claiming any serious political intent.
Anyone willing to lay out Starr’s arguments for the sake of discussion here? I’d need to do more research before attempting it, and I don’t really have access to federal materials in any convenient fashion. The office legal research subscription is limited mostly to State stuff due to the nature of our work.
Hope I’m not breaking the zombie thread rule by bumping this one.
As an update, SCOTUS granted cert:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html
*The appeal will likely be argued in late February, with a ruling expected by late June.
The case is Morse and the Juneau School Board et al. v. Frederick (06-278). *