« One cool cat | Main | T+L Conference's Moviefest and 20 to Watch return »
March 2, 2007
What hits for who?BoardBuzz is flummoxed. Wasn’t the biblical story about Jesus and wine jars? Well, it seems some notorious high school teens heard it another way. At least that’s the best we can figure out when during a school event in which the Olympic torch passed by their high school students unfurled a 20-foot banner emblazoned with the phrase, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
Bong hits for who? What? BoardBuzz’s reaction was just like yours. And, that’s not odd. Because even the slogan’s author, Joseph Frederick, admits in USA Today it was a nonsensical message. Really? And, get this, he also admits it was an attempt to get attention. Say it isn’t so.
So, why is this now a federal case before the highest court in the land? Simply put, because Frederick didn’t like the fact that his principal “tore down the banner and suspended [him] for 10 days.” The principal said “ because 'bong' was a reference to marijuana, the sign violated the school's anti-drug policy.” And, the student sued. Now the case is not only a test of student speech rights, but also about the ability of teachers to maintain the good order of schools. But, beyond these two legal issues, the case is also about whether or not a principal should be personally liable for violating a student’s free speech rights. That means the principal, not the school district, would have to pay damages from his or her pocket for the alleged violation. It boggles the mind that a court could so severely punish a principal simply to preserve a student’s ill gotten 15 minutes of fame for uttering drivel.
But, the surprises don’t stop there. Significant, too, is whether this event was even a school activity at all. See, the court thought it mattered that the parade actually happened “across the street from Juneau-Douglas High School (Alaska), rather than on its grounds.” Forget that the parade itself was co-sponsored by the school, and “that the school's pep band played as the torch passed, [and] its cheerleaders were in uniform to cheer the parade, and teachers supervised the event,” and… well, is another and really necessary? Point is, this was a school activity. Period. Now, BoardBuzz knows a thing or two about school law. And, we understand the constitutional principal that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." But, in an information age of virtual schoolhouses and gates, when classrooms are electronic and learning un-restricted by location, what sense does it make to limit our schools in this manner?
For his part, Frederick, all grown up now at 23, reportedly believes that "schools use 'zero tolerance' policies to cloak their abuse of authority and disregard for student rights." Really? It may not be as catchy as “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” but to BoardBuzz, his statements still make no sense.
To learn more, be sure to check out NSBA's two Amicus Briefs that were filed in the case, here and here.
Posted March 2, 2007 4:32 PM | School Law
Trackback Pings
Comments(1)
Posted by: Stephen Downes on March 3, 2007 1:12 PM
Well if you thought about it for a bit, maybe it would begin to make sense.
The student "believes that 'schools use 'zero tolerance' policies to cloak their abuse of authority and disregard for student rights.'"
The student argues (and I agree) that the ripping down of what is admittedly a nonsense slogan just *is* an "abuse of authority and disregard for student rights."
You may disagree with the student's argument.
But to suggest that it doesn't make sense is ridiculous.
BoardBuzz Feed
