STUDENTS' RIGHTS MUST BE UPHELD

While a senior in high school, I ran for a student government position
with what I was certain was the most brilliant campaign ad ever
fathomed. It was a bright yellow poster with only the word "SEX!"
scrawled across it and a barely legible "Vote for Andy Granias"
somewhere at the bottom. The poster did exactly what I had hoped it
would do: generated some shock value, stood out among the other ads
and prompted a few laughs.

As you might guess, only an hour after I hung up the posters, they
were taken down. I was then summoned by my principal and told that my
ad was unacceptable for public display on school grounds, and that my
eligibility in the race was in jeopardy because of it.

In 2002, high school senior Joseph Franklin of Juneau, Alaska, had a
similarly brilliant idea. He decided to unveil a 15-foot banner that
read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" right as the Olympic torch was passing
through his town.

Now, my educated guess is that Mr. Frederick pulled the stunt for some
very familiar reasons: to generate shock value, stand out and prompt a
few laughs. But young Joseph's "offense" has led him down a slightly
different path from mine, earning him a 10-day suspension and putting
him before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since the case was placed on the docket in December 2006, there has
been a flurry of commotion surrounding it, and not simply because of
its unconventional nature. The ruckus in Washington stems from the
landmark free speech implications that could ensue from the court's
decision. Depending on the ruling of Morse v. Frederick, the manner in
which students exercise their First Amendment rights and the way that
administrators exercise their authority could be drastically altered
in schools all across the country.

The petition to hear the case was brought to the court by none other
than Kenneth Starr, who is representing the school board pro bono. You
may remember Mr. Starr from such frivolous cases as Bill Clinton's
Whitewater land deal and the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. But this time,
Starr is actually involved in a case that has real consequences for
the way Americans live their everyday lives, even though he's dead
wrong.

In arguments heard Monday, Mr. Frederick's attorney argued that his
free speech rights were violated when the principal took down his
banner and subsequently suspended him. The school board, on the other
hand, argued that the principal's decision to take down the sign was
following the basic right of administrators to be able to thwart any
efforts at displaying or advocating illegal drug use.

The school board insists that the principal was fully within the
designated guidelines as an administrator, but this is an entirely
flawed rationale that ignores the blatant violation of Mr. Frederick's
First Amendment rights.

As explained to me by UW political science professor and First
Amendment rights expert Donald Downs, "If the court were to rule in
favor of the administration, it would set a precedent for a student's
ability, or lack thereof, to criticize school policy. It would be like
suspending a student if he criticized the school for cutting the band
program."

Furthermore, the school board has neglected one of the most crucial
aspects of the case: Mr. Frederick was not on school grounds when he
unveiled his banner. The school board's argument is, then, that the
event was school-sanctioned, and the matter in question is whether or
not Mr. Frederick had the right to display the banner at the event,
even though he was not on school property.

But if he was not on school property, what separates this from any
other simple exercise of free speech? The answer is nothing.

As further explained to me by Mr. Downs, the final decision lies in
whether or not the student was being disruptive, and it is quite
apparent he was not.

Downs said, "It seems to me that this is a classic example of free
speech without disruption to the event. And if the court were to rule
in favor of the administration, I don't know how they would come up
with an explanation as to what would stop this from becoming a
slippery-slope situation, where the administration has an ability to
thwart any criticism of school policy."

In the end, the importance of Morse v. Frederick does not lie in what
was done by Mr. Frederick or the principal, but rather what could be
done by school administrators in the future as a result of the ruling.
After all, if the court deems it constitutional to thwart an
expression contrary to a school's educational message, where will the
line be drawn? Will it be drawn at criticizing the lunch menu? What
about the material taught in class? Or how about the war in Iraq?

In the end, whether the Supreme Court is able to make the right
decision or not will lie in the ability of the justices to read
between the lines of a banner that might have well said "Free Speech 4
Students."