FREE EXPRESSION

Justices Missed The Point Of Teen's Banner

A 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court chalked one up for school
principals this week. In doing so, they tweaked the First Amendment.
The justices upheld a Juneau, Alaska, principal's decision in 2002 to
rip up a student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner and suspend him, saying
she was justified because the sign promoted illegal drug use "at a
school event."

To put it mildly, that's a stretch and ignores the history that
preceded the incident: a bright, authority-challenging teenager who
succeeded in getting under his principal's skin. It was hardly a
danger so serious that warranted the tightening of student free speech rights.

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that there are limits to students'
First Amendment rights. In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School
District, the court ruled that school officials couldn't prohibit
students from protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black arm bands.
Students, the court said, "do not shed their constitutional rights to
freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The key
issue was whether the student expression disrupted the school's
mission of education.

A difference in the Alaska case, however, was that senior Joseph
Frederick wasn't on school property. He was across the street as his
high school gathered on the other side to watch the Olympic torch
pass by. The relay was sponsored by Coca-Cola, not the school. As
television cameras rolled, he unfurled his banner and school
officials ripped it down. Lower federal courts first upheld the
school then the student, awarding him monetary damages. Supported by
the Bush administration and the National School Boards Association,
the school appealed to the Supreme Court. They argued school
officials have an obligation to censor messages promoting illegal
drug use that conflicted with the schools' "educational mission."

Drug abuse is a serious problem. But Mr. Frederick's sign was
ambiguous, at best. Did it promote drug abuse or did it promote
religion? Earlier this year, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to
show a clear head when he said, referring to the monetary award,
"It's a case about money." Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns
about giving school officials too much latitude. Justices Alito and
Anthony Kennedy provided the deciding votes only on the understanding
that the decision applied only to speech advocating illegal drug use
and not "any political or social issue."

This ruling blurs too many facts. It allows schools to reach beyond
the schoolhouse gate. It raises questions about what type of speech
might next clash with a school's "educational mission." It goes too far.