Public schools can stifle student speech that promotes drug use, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in the case of a student suspended for hoisting a banner with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
In Frederick v. Morse, the Supreme Court ruled that high school administrators didn’t violate Joseph Frederick’s rights when they suspended him for waving the banner at a Juneau, Alaska public assembly off school grounds in 2002. Read the Associated Press’ account of the case here.
This shortsighted ruling emphasizes the federal government’s fear of illegal drugs and its fervor to ban not only the substances themselves, but even favorable mention of what’s become a universal taboo. But it also sets a startling precedent — school administrators now have more authority than parents.
Joseph Frederick brought his handmade “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner to a public assembly when the Olympic torch was carried through Juneau in 2002. He didn’t attend school that day, presumably leaving his home with the banner and arriving at the torch ceremony. There, at the very same assembly, were Frederick’s classmates, teachers and principal, who were there on a school-sanctioned field trip.
Whether you agree with Frederick’s right to display his nonsensical message; whether you believe it was irresponsible, objectionable or just plain silly, suspend your judgment of his banner long enough to absorb the following facts:
1. Frederick, though a minor, was a public citizen in a public place
2. He had his parents’ permission to stay home from school, create and display the banner
3. His high school principal approached him, confiscated the banner and suspended him from school
Free speech concerns notwithstanding, the real jaw-dropper here is not that Frederick was censored, but that the principal of his high school exerted parental authority over a child not entrusted to her care that day.
Parents, you should be cringing. Shivering. Fuming.
Because the Supreme Court seems to think a school administrator is as good as better than a parent when it comes to regulating your children’s behavior.
If a high school principal can suppress your child’s expression at a public event where she happens to be present, what’s to stop her from approaching your son or daughter in a shopping mall and barking orders like a preening drill sergeant?
If the Supreme Court continues down its slippery slope of delegating parental authority to teachers and administrators off school grounds, we’re in for scary times. Schools already are gleefully meting out punishment for taunts and jeers posted on MySpace; where is the next erosion in parental rights?
So, what’s to stop that overzealous administrator from acting less like a school principal and more like a parent?
Nothing, according to our Supreme Court.