CIVIL LIBERTIES GOING UP IN SMOKE

It requires intellect and legal knowledge to navigate through the
smoke and mirrors of Supreme Court decision-making. Last Monday, the
Supreme Court heard a high school boy from Alaska defend his waving of
a banner with the ever-so-cryptic message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the
Olympic torch passed through Juneau five years ago. His principal
promptly suspended him for ten days on the grounds that this sign was
disruptive and promoted illegal behavior. Although the student
admittedly had no point displaying the banner (he probably was not too
clear-headed), the Supreme Court ought not let this case become a
precedent to slowly but surely narrow the scope of the First Amendment.

Although the banner may not have been especially tasteful, the school
board's position that it was offensive is rather weak. Kenneth Starr,
the attorney representing the school board, argued that the 1969
ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
gave the precedent to allow high schools to restrict lewd or
disruptive speech. In the present case, there are no reports that the
banner caused mass chaos or neighborhood riots.

More than that, though, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is nothing more than
nonsensical, much less lewd. Regardless, it is not clear where and
when Americans won the right not to be offended. Some people are
understandably offended by racist remarks. Others, like myself, find
the smell emanating from their brothers' cleats offensive. Clearly the
"offensive" defense does not hold much water.

When the Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler started his
argument with the claim that schools do "not have to tolerate a
message that is inconsistent with its basic educational [mission]"
(Justice Alito cut him off before he could finish), it was clear why
the Bush administration entered the case on the side of the principal
- -- they want public schools to be able to squelch any form of
political dissent, especially particularly annoying social issues like
debate over the legalization of marijuana.

No matter how much Bush would like to have a nation of lemmings who
never disagree with policy, schools cannot be given such broad
jurisdiction over the lives of young people. Schools exist for
education, not social and moral engineering.

What is most "offensive" about this case is the backhanded way in
which the prosecution is attempting to erode the fundamentally
American right to protest. Starr contended students shouldn't be
allowed to advocate anything illegal. Clearly he hasn't realized
activists have been doing this since the nation's founding.

Less activist citizens may still argue that unfurling a banner like
this one as the Olympic torch passes should not be condoned, and that
students should protest in a more tasteful, respectful manner.
Perhaps. But the whole point of a protest is to get attention, and
passing around a petition at the event certainly would not have gotten
notice by the national media and Supreme Court.

Clearly this case is about the parameters of the First Amendment and
how they apply to schools. The most disturbing words to echo through
the Court came from none other than the mouth of Chief Justice John
Roberts. He innocently reflected, "I mean, why is it that the
classroom ought to be a forum for political debate simply because the
students want to put that on their agenda?" This unabashed, callous
disregard for free thought and political activism among our youth
ought to give every American pause.

Perhaps Roberts longs for the era where government was conducted by a
handful of aged white elites, not the unwashed masses -- much less
young people. Regardless of Roberts' opinion, the Supreme Court should
rule that of all places, schools should entertain political engagement.