The most recent controversy involves Annie Zinos, a
sixth grade student in Minnesota, who was prohibited by her school from sharing
pro-life literature with her classmates. Last week, Annie and her family filed
suit against school officials for violating her First Amendment rights.
Meanwhile in New Mexico, a group of evangelical high
school students lost a round last month in their fight to give classmates
“fetus dolls” with a pro-life message attached. A three-judge panel of the U.S.
10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school district’s authority to stop
the doll distribution.
Pro-life protesters in schools are a recent development,
but students demonstrating for what they believe during the school day are a
familiar part of our history.
From Billy Gobitis refusing to salute the flag in
the 1930s, to Barbara Johns organizing against miserable conditions in black
schools in the 1950s, to Mary Beth Tinker wearing an armband to protest the
Vietnam War in the 1960s, students of conviction have not been shy about
exercising their First Amendment rights in public schools.
In every generation, school officials react (and
often over-react) by attempting to keep the lid on student protests. And in
every generation, the courts are faced with determining when and where schools
may draw the line on student religious and political speech.
Now pro-life kids are taking their turn defining
student rights by challenging school officials in court.
In the New Mexico appeals court decision, students
have already bumped up against the limits of freedom allowed under the First
Amendment – not because of the point of view they espouse, but because of the
disruption they stirred by espousing it.
When the pro-life students first distributed the
fetus dolls, chaos ensued. According to Education Week, teachers complained
that students were throwing the dolls, using them to plug toilets, and in other
ways causing serious trouble.
Not surprisingly, the court sided with the school
district by ruling that further distribution of the fetus dolls would likely
cause major disruption.
Even the strongest U.S. Supreme Court decision
upholding free speech rights of students, Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent
School District, makes clear that school officials may draw the line of student
expression when they can reasonably forecast that it would cause substantial
disruption.
The censorship of Annie in Minnesota, however, is a
very different case.
The pro-life fliers she distributed – “Save the baby
humans. Stop abortion.” – caused some students to complain that they were
offended. But the school failed to show that the fliers caused any significant
disruption.
Under the First Amendment, students are free to
share their religious or political views, even if those views offend others.
But they are not free to create mayhem in the school.
School officials at Annie’s school appear to have misread
Supreme Court precedents to mean that schools may censor any distribution of
literature by students they deem contrary to the school’s mission or not age
appropriate for middle school.
It’s true that the Supreme Court has upheld the
authority of schools to censor vulgar or obscene student speech and to censor
student speech that occurs in a school-sponsored context such as the school
newspaper.
But otherwise, Tinker still rules: School officials
may not censor student religious or political speech unless they can show that
such speech will substantially disrupt the school or interfere with the rights
of others.
Chances are very good that Annie Zinos will prevail
in her fight to distribute her pro-life fliers. And if she does, she’ll have
Billy, Barbara, and especially Mary Beth to thank.
About the author: Charles C. Haynes is director of
the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001. Web: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/.
E-mail: chaynes[at]freedomforum.org.
This article was published by the First Amendment
Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment