THE 'YOUTH' VOICE?

March 19, nearly 40 years after its landmark decision protecting
13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker's right to protest the Vietnam War by wearing
a black armband to class, the U.S. Supreme Court was back in school.

This time, as another war divides the nation, the student speech in
question was not about foreign policy, freedom or justice - it was about
bong hits.

The conflict began in January 2002, as the Olympic torch traveled through
Juneau, Alaska. Joseph Frederick and some fellow high school seniors
thought they could get on TV by unfurling a banner with the cryptic
message, "BONG HITS 4 JESUS."

When Frederick's high school principal saw the banner, she left school
property and crossed the street to confront him. The 18-year-old countered
the principal's order to take down the banner by asking, "What about the
Bill of Rights and freedom of speech?"

Now nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court must answer Frederick's
question in Morse v. Frederick. In so doing, they will rule on an issue,
student speech rights, that has grown increasingly complex since the
court's Tinker ruling in 1969.

As Juneau school superintendent Peggy Cowan put it, "We are counting on
this case to give us clarity."

Cowan's desire for legal guidance is understandable. Since 1969, the
Supreme Court has twice refined its primary standard for judging the
constitutionality of student speech, in 1986 and 1988.

Yet lingering questions remain about when - and which of - these different
legal standards should apply, resulting in a slew of conflicting opinions
at the lower court level. As important as legal clarity may be, facts of
the case underscore an equally pressing concern - the eroding quality of
civic discourse in this country. Consider the distance we have traveled
from Tinker's armband to Frederick's banner and what the ideological chasm
between those two methods of symbolic expression suggests about the extent
to which we value and support authentic opportunities for youth voice and
civic engagement.

Tinker, her brother, John, and five middle and high school classmates wore
their armbands to school in December 1965 because they felt compelled by
their consciences to speak out. As John explained in official court papers,
"I do not consider this a trivial matter. It is important to me because I
morally think [the war] is wrong, and when people are getting killed, I
guess that's important to me."

By contrast, Frederick's act provides no similarly compelling rationale. As
he said in a court affidavit, "We thought we had a free-speech right to
display a humorous saying. The content of the banner was less important to
us than the fact we were exercising our free-speech rights to do a funny
parody."

The distinction between the two comments underscores the subtle but
deleterious devolution of First Amendment significance in American society.
Today, many of us, if we think about the First Amendment at all, are less
likely to envision Cesar Chavez, Alice Paul or black armbands, and more
likely to imagine computer-generated images of child pornography, divisive
culture wars in our public schools or bong-hits banners.

The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect only the civic leader, the
suffragette or the student activist, and all of us who cherish those five
freedoms (religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), must accept
civic responsibility to protect our own rights and rights of others -
especially those whose ideas we most deeply disagree with.

Yet with a case like this before the Supreme Court, First Amendment rights
of young people stand to suffer either way.

Many will see Frederick's speech as the latest example of a generation
increasingly apathetic, immature and incapable of participating fully in
civic life.

Others will cast school officials as the chief obstacle to a more robust
application of the First Amendment in public education. The deeper truth,
beyond specific facts of this or any other case, is we have become
complacent when it comes to ensuring all young people have the skills and
self-confidence they need to be seen and heard in meaningful, responsible
ways - in and out of school.

Before our students can become more free and responsible citizens, we need
schools concerned with doing more than raising test scores. We need leaders
who spark student learning and civic engagement by creating schools in
which everyone has voice, value and visibility.

And we need more than just students who possess a vague awareness of the
five First Amendment five freedoms; we need a new generation of citizens
who more fully understand and use those rights to follow their consciences,
speak out for justice and organize for change.

Sam Chaltain is an education consultant and co-author of "First Freedoms: A
Documentary History of First Amendment Rights in America."