The Schools Are Destroying Freedom of Speech
By John W. Whitehead
March 25, 2009
"The Constitution makes clear there can be no religious test for holding office,
and it is just as clear there can be no religious test for
individual expression of free speech--or censorship thereof, including at a high school
graduation."--Nat Hentoff, author and journalist
Looking at America's public schools, it is difficult to imagine that they were once
considered the hope of freedom and democracy. That dream is no longer true. The majority
of students today have little knowledge of the freedoms they possess in the Constitution
and, specifically, in the Bill of Rights.
For example, a national survey of high school students reveals that only 2% can
identify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; 35% know the first three words of the
U.S. Constitution; 1.8% know that James Madison is considered the father of the U.S.
Constitution; and 25% know that the Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and
self incrimination, among other legal rights. Clearly, high school civics classes are
failing to teach the importance of our constitutional liberties.
Public educators do not fare much better in understanding and implementing the
Constitution in the classroom. A study conducted by the University of Connecticut found
that while public educators seem to support First Amendment rights in principle, they are
reluctant to apply such rights in the schools. Consequently, the few students who do know
and exercise their rights are forced to deal with school officials who, more often than
not, fail to respect those rights.
Unfortunately, instead of being the guardians of freedom, the courts increasingly are
upholding acts of censorship by government officials. As a result, the horrific lesson
being taught to our young people is that the government has absolute power over its
citizens and young people have very little freedom. Two incidents come to mind to
illustrate this sad state of affairs, both having to do with school officials
heavy-handedly silencing student expression at high school graduation ceremonies.
The first incident involves Nicholas Noel, the senior class president of his graduating
class at Grand Rapids Union High School in Michigan. With more than 1,000 people in the
audience listening to Noel deliver his commencement address, school officials turned off
the microphone when he strayed from his approved speech and referred to the high school as
a "prison." Noel said he described the school as a "prison" because it
stressed conformity and students were "expected to act alike." His message was
that high school paints an incomplete picture of life for students. "The colors of
life are yet to come," Noel said. "It was really nice, nothing in bad taste. I
tried to be different, and I was punished." Adding insult to injury, school officials
even initially refused to award him his diploma.
The second incident, strikingly similar to Noel's, also involves a student whose
microphone was cut off during her graduation speech simply because she voiced her personal
convictions. Brittany McComb, the graduating valedictorian at Foothill High School in
Nevada, was instructed by school officials to reflect over past experiences and lessons
learned, say things that came from her heart and inject hope into her speech. Brittany
adhered to the school's guidelines and wrote about the true meaning of success in her
life--her religious beliefs. However, when she submitted her speech in advance to school
administrators, they censored it, deleting several Bible verses and references to
"the Lord" and one mention of "Christ."
Believing that the district's censorship amounted to a violation of her right to free
speech, McComb attempted to deliver the original version of her speech at graduation. The
moment school officials realized that she was straying from the approved text, they unplugged
her microphone. The move drew extended jeers from the audience, with some people
screaming, "Let her speak!"
School officials justified their actions by claiming that McComb's speech amounted to
proselytizing. McComb disagrees. "I was telling my story," she said. "And
if what I said was proselytizing, it was no more so than every other speaker who espoused
his or her personal moral viewpoint about success. We're talking about life here: opinions
about the means of success in life, from whatever source, are indeed forms of individual
religious expression. It's also hard for me to believe that anyone at graduation could
think I or any other speaker was speaking on behalf of the school system."
McComb filed a First Amendment lawsuit in federal court. But on March 19, 2009, a
federal appeals court held that school officials did not violate her First Amendment
rights by censoring her speech and unplugging the microphone. McComb, who is majoring in
journalism at Biola University, plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
She should not expect much help from the ACLU. Despite being a longtime champion of
student expression, the ACLU actually condoned the school's act of censorship. As ACLU
lawyer Allen Lichtenstein remarked about the case, "It's important for people to
understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in
essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
Frankly, if the ACLU applied this logic consistently, then nowhere in the schools would
students have the right to say anything that wasn't approved by their teachers or
high-level school officials since every area in a public school is controlled and
sponsored by the school.
Unfortunately, the trend in the federal courts is to agree with this type of skewed
reasoning. However, this type of logic will only succeed in eradicating free expression by
students in schools, and the ramifications are far-reaching. Eventually, it will mean that
government officials can pull the plug on microphones when they disagree with whatever any
citizen has to say. Yet the lessons of history are clear: every authoritarian regime from
Hitler to Saddam Hussein has not only unplugged citizens' microphones but stopped those
with whom the government disapproved from speaking.
Civil libertarians and the courts have long held that the First Amendment right to free
speech applies to everyone, whatever their beliefs. This includes what many people
consider offensive or deplorable speech. It also includes speech that persuades, as well
as religious speech, non-religious speech or pointedly atheistic speech. Thus, unless we
want free speech to end up in a totalitarian graveyard, no one, no matter their viewpoint
or ideology, should be censored in any state institution.
WC: 1054
This commentary is
available online at www.rutherford.org
Question? Comment? What do you think? Write Your
World Report Editor Derek Clontz . He reads and responds personally to every
letter, often within minutes and always within one business day.
Remember: Your World Report is the world's fastest-growing
newsmagazine.* Welcome to our family of readers - 2.5 million strong.
* GNI Global Readership Survey 2009.
Copyright © 2009 4-Page Media, Inc./Your World Report.
All rights reserved. |
