'BONG HITS' CASE IMPORTANT FOR FREEDOM

The Supreme Court is a solemn forum where America's greatest legal
minds gather to soberly weigh serious issues. But that doesn't mean
they can't have a bit of a laugh every now and then. In the 1960s and
1970s justices would gather to munch on popcorn and watch pornographic
movies to define what was "obscene" or not. Monday, the court heard
arguments on whether "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" qualifies as free speech.

It all started when Joseph Frederick, a then-18 year-old high school
senior, unfurled a 14-foot banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" while
his classmates and teachers gathered to watch the 2002 Olympic torch
relay pass through Juneau, Alaska. High school principal Deborah Morse
saw the banner, confiscated it from him, destroyed it and suspended
Frederick for 10 days. Now his sophomoric prank will be the genesis of
another landmark case considering the extent of student free speech on
and off campus.

Kenneth Starr, representing the Juneau school district, argues
Frederick's banner was disruptive and contradictive of the school's
mission to promote a drug-free academic environment. Starr contends
the case can be simplified as "ultimately about drugs and other
illegal substances." Nothing can be further from the truth.

What this case is about is whether a student is allowed to promote
messages contrary to established school board principles.

Nearly 40 years ago the court established a foundational principle of
free speech for students. In Tinker v. Des Moines they established
that students do not "shed their constitutional rights at the
schoolhouse gate." Later, they would include some room for
administrators to regulate "disruptive" speech not conducive to a
classroom environment.

What is "disruptive" can be incredibly vague, and now the Juneau
school district wishes to include Frederick's unpopular speech,
however nonsensical, in that category. Opposition to current drug
policy is a complex issue and certainly cannot be summed up in its
entirety on any banner. But if the court rules in their favor, it will
stifle the very academic atmosphere the school district wants to maintain.

Most of the justices happily expressed this concern during oral
arguments.

When hearing arguments on the speech ban, Justice Samuel Alito said,
"I find that a very, very disturbing argument because schools have and
they can define their educational mission so broadly that they can
suppress all sorts of political speech."

Unfortunately, not all justices are trying to zero in on the true
legal argument at stake here. Justice Antonin Scalia was intent on
parsing the definition of a school event, whether it was off campus or
not and if attendance was implied as compulsory or not.

Justices are famous for challenging both sides in a case with a
barrage of questions. These questions do not necessarily betray how
one justice will rule one way or the other, but they do have the real
effect of framing the debate in the wrong way.

Scalia went on to outline his vision of what a school is. "A school
isn't an open forum. It's there for the teachers to instruct," he said.

This line of reasoning shows precisely what is wrong with the American
public school system today. Our math and science scores are
embarrassingly low relative to the rest of the developed world.
Outsourcing is a growing phenomenon worthy of introducing in
presidential debates, and if our schools continue to just "instruct"
rather than inform and teach basic reasoning and intellectual
curiosity, we will continue on that track.

To be realistic, "Bong hits for Jesus" is of questionable taste and
was not the best choice of words to protest drug policy in America.
Frederick himself admitted it was just a joke. But not all symbolic
forms of speech or expression are immediately recognizable or mean the
same thing to different observers. Frederick's banner is open to all
kinds of interpretation and deconstruction. Was it asking students to
pass the Bible to the left and fill themselves with the holy spirit?
Is it a flippant protest of marijuana policy in America? None of these
questions matter or should be answered in a court of law. Mandating a
"proper" form for free expression would undermine the very spirit of
"free expression."

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus," officially Frederick v. Morse, will have
far-reaching consequences on student speech on and off campus. More
important is the future of discourse in already failing academic
environments. The court needs to recognize the real issue at hand here
and not focus on the irrelevant particulars of the case.