RULING ERODES PARENTS' RIGHTS

Court Sides With Principal In 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Case

If the Supreme Court's latest thrashing of student expressive rights
doesn't infuriate America's moms and dads, maybe the ruling's
implications on their parental authority will.

Public schools can stifle student speech that promotes drug use, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in the case of a student suspended for
hoisting a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

In Frederick v. Morse, the Supreme Court ruled that high school
administrators didn't violate Joseph Frederick's rights when they
suspended him for waving the banner at a Juneau, Alaska public
assembly off school grounds in 2002.

This shortsighted ruling emphasizes the federal government's fear of
illegal drugs and its fervor to ban not only the substances
themselves, but even favorable mention of what's become a national
taboo.

But it also sets a startling precedent -- school administrators now
have more authority than parents.

Joseph Frederick brought his handmade "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner to a
public assembly when the Olympic torch was carried through Juneau in
2002. He didn't attend school that day, presumably leaving his home
with the banner and arriving at the torch ceremony.

There, at the very same assembly, were Frederick's classmates,
teachers and principal on a school-sanctioned field trip.

Whether you agree with Frederick's right to display his bizarre
message; whether you believe it was irresponsible, objectionable or
just plain silly, suspend your judgment of his banner long enough to
absorb the following facts:

1. Frederick, though a minor, was a public citizen in a public
place

2. He presumably had his parents' permission to stay home from school,
create and display the banner

3. His high school principal approached him, confiscated the banner
and suspended him from school

Free speech concerns notwithstanding, the real jaw-dropper here is not
that Frederick's message was censored, but that the principal of his
high school exerted parental authority over a child not entrusted to
her care that day.

Parents, you should be seething -- the arbiters of American justice
seem to think a school administrator should have more rights to
regulate your child's actions in a public place than you do.

If a high school principal can suppress your child's expression at a
public event where she happens to be present, what's to stop her from
approaching your son or daughter in a shopping mall and barking orders
like a preening drill sergeant?

If the Supreme Court continues down its slippery slope of delegating
parental authority to teachers and administrators off school grounds,
we're in for scary times. Schools already are gleefully meting out
punishment for taunts and jeers posted on MySpace from students' home
computers; what's the next erosion in parental rights?

Many -- I'd guess most -- parents would prefer their son or daughter
avoid skipping school to hoist a cryptic banner sardonically linking
inhalation to salvation. Frederick's parents probably weren't thrilled
about it, but they supported his right to express himself.

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was more nonsensical than nefarious, anyway.
Frederick had seen the slogan on a snowboard and copied it to attract
television cameras panning the crowd, according to an Associated Press
story.

So, what's to stop that overzealous administrator from acting less
like a school principal and more like a parent?

Nothing, according to our Supreme Court.