HIGH SCHOOLER'S FUN UNITES RIGHT AND LEFT BEFORE SUPREME COURT

Talk about a joke getting out of hand. Five years ago a Juneau,
Alaska, high school student named Joseph Frederick thought he'd come
up with a hilarious prank. He made a sign saying, "Bong Hits 4
Jesus," and unfurled it while the Olympic torch was being run through
his hometown so lots of television cameras would pick it up.

In one sense, it all worked out perfectly. Frederick not only got his
15-foot banner on TV, he managed to annoy his high school principal,
Deborah Morse, with whom he'd been feuding.

So how did "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" wind up before the Supreme Court
Monday afternoon? And why was it that Whitewater attorney Kenneth
Starr turned up to argue the case? And, best of all, how did a host
of conservative legal organizations, including one organized by
evangelical religious leader Pat Robertson, end up on the side of "Bong Hits?"

Now that's a joke.

As everyone agrees, this offbeat little slogan -- Frederick says he
once read it on a snowboard -- turns out to have potentially huge
ramifications. They range from the ability of school administrators
to restrict what students may say, wear, and display, to a serious
discussion of the rights to free speech granted by the First
Amendment. And, of course, the exact meaning of the words "bong hits."

"Suppose," said Justice Stephen Breyer during Monday's arguments,
"this particular person had whispered to his next door neighbor,
"Bong Hits for Jesus, heh, heh, heh."

Admit it. There's a comment you never expected to hear from a Supreme
Court justice.

Yet the issues could not be more serious.

"It is a very complicated case," says Brad Joondeph, a professor of
constitutional law at Santa Clara University Law School. "But at the
same time it goes to the heart of what public education is all about."

School administrators contend that students can't turn up at school
with offensive T-shirts, sexually inappropriate outfits, or hateful
messages. At least that's the argument Starr advanced in supporting
Morse and the high school. When she saw the banner, Morse says she
ordered Frederick to take it down. When he refused, she confiscated
it and ordered him to serve 10 days of detention. That's perfectly
fine, Starr said. If the principal says something is inappropriate, it is.

"Someone has to interpret the message," Starr said in his opening
statement to the court, "and the front line message interpreter is
the school official."

But as Joondeph says, "there is no bright-line rule ... that says the
school has the right to control the viewpoint of the students."

In other words, what's wrong with a silly banner? Frederick claims it
was just a joke. And, as some of his supporters say, what if he were
advocating the smoking of marijuana? Isn't that a topic worthy of debate?

"I think this is heading down the wrong path," says Kevin Snider,
chief council for Sacramento's conservative Pacific Justice
Institute. "When students are enjoined in appropriate philosophical
speech, we need to encourage that. I don't see where the Bill of
Rights should be trumped by the schools."

And that's where things tend to take off in unexpected directions.
When the court agreed to hear the case, the assumption was that it
would be an easy win for Starr, supporting the school and the rights
of administrators.

But that was before a powerful collection of First Amendment
advocates lined up with conservative Christian groups who oppose any
attempt to limit their freedom to discuss religion in the classroom.
So not only is the liberal American Civil Liberties Union fighting
for Frederick, but so is the American Center for Law and Justice,
which was created by ultra conservative Robertson.

"Have you seen some of the groups supporting this?" asks Snider. "I'd
be afraid to get all of them in the same room."

But however the decision comes out -- justices are expected to decide
as soon as Wednesday, but it is not likely to be published until June
- -- it will only serve to highlight the difficult calls that schools
and principals must make.

"I'm not sure where I would land on this," says Acalanes High School
principal John Nickerson. "Every time we get into something like this
we find there are layers within layers."

Nickerson had a situation at his Lafayette school two years ago that
illustrates the problem. A student, running for vice president, came
up with the slogan, "Vote for me, because the president won't die."
It was meant to be humorous, meaning that there was no risk in voting
for him because he wouldn't have any real authority anyhow. But
Nickerson ruled that the slogan was out of line and made him withdraw it.

Pretty simple, right? Not to everyone. Snider says he doesn't
understand what is wrong with the slogan.

"Inappropriate is not enough." Snider says. "In fact, I don't think
offensive is enough."

What is out of line is a matter of perspective.

Snider, for example, says he wouldn't have a problem with a T-shirt
reading, "Gays will burn in hell." Snider says it is clearly
offensive, but shouldn't be restricted. Pleasanton Unified School
District Superintendent John Casey disagrees.

"No way would we allow that shirt to be worn here," Casey says. "To a
gay person, and especially a religious gay person, that is very offensive."

Clearly, this is no longer a joke. In fact, scores of high school
students showed up at the Supreme Court Monday to sit in on the case.
This is the new generation of students, who, Nickerson says, have a
much better concept of their rights and privileges under the law.
School rulings, he says, are much more likely to be challenged

"The schools have done their job too well," Nickerson says.

But he was only joking.

I think.