FREEDOM MEANS BONG HITS 4 JESUS

Free speech is considered sacred in most universities. The right to
discuss or advocate the mundane, the practical, or the fantastical is
inherent in establishments of higher learning, though practiced to
varying degrees. However, if such rights were limited in grade
school, would we be so quick to enact them at university?

That question deserves serious thought in both the U.S. and Canada,
as issues of free speech regarding illegal drug use have recently
caused a stir in the media.

The U.S. Supreme court recently ruled on the case of Joseph
Frederick, a young man who as a high-school student unfurled a 4.5
metre banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" when the Olympic torch for
the Salt Lake City games went through Juneau, Alaska. He was
suspended from school, but he brought the case to court.

The argument of prosecution lawyer Kenneth Starr and the Bush
administration boiled down to the necessity of schools to protect
their "educational mission." The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that
a school administrator may restrict students' speech when it is
"reasonably viewed" to be promoting illegal drug use.

The issue here is not the incident, but the precedent. The case could
have been thrown out on the grounds that Frederick could not legally
pursue a cash settlement in damages, as he was attempting to.
Instead, the court set a new standard for school administrators to
consider when students discuss the necessity of drug laws, or the
medical costs and benefits of illegal drugs.

Conservative pariah Antonin Scalia claimed that Frederick was
disruptive and deserved punishment because he was "undermining what
the school is trying to teach."

When did the latent functions of schools become manifest? I don't
recall hearing that it was the responsibility of schools to teach
children to bow in acceptance of the rules and laws of man. A
school's "educational mission" should consist of little more than
properly teaching children the fundamentals of math, science,
history, etc. Moral guidance is not equitable with moral lawmaking,
and high schools should know it.

An example of such repressiveness recently occurred in Wawota,
Saskatchewan. Kieran King, 15, had done some research into the
dangers of marijuana relative to alcohol and tobacco, and concluded
that marijuana was the least dangerous of the three. For sharing his
findings, however, the school principal called home to express
concern, and accused the boy of advocating, or perhaps selling, marijuana.

King planned a walkout to protest his right to free speech, along
with some of his friends. This is where the school became tyrannical,
attempting to bar the doors before the students could escape, and
then locking the school and calling in the RCMP once the students were outside.

The actions of the Wawota school principal were out of line, and she
has come under a fair deal of criticism since. But the incident
provides some foreshadowing to the consequences that the U.S. court
ruling could bring.

Ignoring, for the moment, the problems of a partisan-elected court,
the ruling strikes a nerve for anyone with a concern for free speech.
I'm no expert in constitutional rights -- I await confirmation or
rebuttal from someone who is -- but aren't we allowed to debate the
necessity or appropriateness of laws and regulations?

Advocating certain actions is often inherent in much of that debate,
but as long as students aren't breaking the laws themselves, or
assisting anyone else who might, they shouldn't face punishment for
their opinions.

The erosion of free speech doesn't just affect secular liberals. Many
Christian evangelicals were surprisingly on the side of Frederick for
this case, because they saw the approaching precedent as a serious
threat to the ability of Christian students to espouse anti-gay or
anti-abortion messages in school.

It's easy to feel secure in ivory towers or shanty soapboxes at
universities, but as evidence from other countries has often shown,
the expansion of free speech at universities are often just stilts
for the free speech rights of the whole society. Fight for the
freedom of others before you're the only one left who can fight for yourself.