"neither students or teachers shed their constitutional rights of freedom of speech at the school house gate."

Question

* explain how the point of view expressed in the excerpt above could conflict with the functioning of a school.

** do you agree or disagree with the position taken in this excerpt? explain.

Answer 1

If teachers choose to express their particular beliefs, they may unfairly influence young minds which are highly impressionable.

As children are limited in their constitutional rights already (buying guns, for example), it seems reasonable that their freedom of speech rights may also be limited to accommodate their circumstances in school.

Answer 2

I teach at a high school and I know this view is WRONG. The students can't wear piercings in the nose or eyebrows. This is a form of self-expression that states who they are so therefore this is a restriction of his/her freedom of speech. Also teachers can not express any areas of disagreement with the administration without some type of negative consequences following.

Answer 3

(A) General notes on Constitutional and civil rights and responsibilities

I agree and disagree on the limits on these in a school setting.

I agree that at all times and under all circumstances, all people are governed under the same civil rights and freedoms as in the Constitution, in private or in public, to the degree they are willing to accept responsibility for their actions and consequences under these same standards.

This is because the civil rights in the Constitutional amendments reflect "natural laws" that govern all humans and social contracts or behavior, as inalienable and part of human design. These laws happen to be written and best expressed in the First Amendment and related laws, but they apply regardless because human nature is constistent and responds to a balance of freedom and peace in relationships, in group settings, and in society.

(Naturals laws are like the "golden rule" -- that you reap what you sow, that you get the government you deserve. If you want legal protections you must enforce these yourself.)

However, by the same token, I also agree that there are limits to Constitutional rights for two reasons (1) the laws have a built-in check and balance against abuses; so that you cannot violate the same laws that you are claiming to invoke and (2) not everyone agrees to the same degree of exercising freedom in any given situation before protesting it as unlawful abuse, harassment, hate speech, or breaches/disturbance of the peace. So there is a choice in different institutions or among different people what constitutes freedom or what is abuse and can be restricted.

As long as there is "due process" for grievances, for petitioning or protesting, any such conflict can be resolved;
so that this is also an integral part of the same laws on democratic government and social order.

This is true both within governmental institutions bound by the First Amendment and other Constitutional laws, and among private individuals and institutions who may freely choose to enforce various levels or standards of these same concepts.

(B) EXAMPLES that related directly to school function:

Three examples of conflicts involving freedom of speech/press that arose at the college where I went to school and graduated:

(1) The student radio station was programmed by a student volunteer staff, until the school administration decided to broadcast sports over the air. This led to a conflict, where the students protested and even got shut out of the station. They argued that the station should remain free and not controlled by the administration. The officials argued that the resources were paid for by the school, and still had governing control over the students' usage. So the conflict ended in a compromise where programming would be decided by a mixed board of students and administrators, with continuing concern that the students could still be overruled by the school administrators.

So this caused a free speech issue because the cost of the station was funded by the school, which has a separate board and administration, while the station had been operated by students with a separate decision-making board.
The students pay tuition to the school, and the school is private but receives some federal grants, so there were mixed factors in a "grey area" as to what level of "free speech" the students could argue for protection.

(2) The school newspaper ran into a controversy over whether to run ads by a group that claimed to host debates on the Holocaust, but had a reputation of being "holocaust deniers" who intended to abuse the forum to preach one-sided "hate speech" and did not respect rebuttals or open discussion or debate. So students on campus protested against running the ads. So the issue of "free speech" was brought up in terms of whether the newspaper had the right to refuse to run the ad, and the school refuse to allow the guests to come in; whether that was censorship, or discretion, or whether the group was practicing free speech or abusing the First Amendment and promoting "hate speech" which is can be considered harassing, discriminatory, inciteful or otherwise disruptive to the peace and could be prohibited from campus.

[Another related issue -- the school paper was known for publishing anonymous humor on the backpage, which was regularly protested for anti-women jokes as a minority on campus. Some people argued the students/newspaper had the freedom to publish "blonde jokes" and other humor offensive to some; others argued that it unfairly targeted a group and constituted tolerance for harassment and discrimination. So this set off a debate. Later, as the newspaper staff evolved with the changing student body, the humor and content naturally shifted to reflect new needs and values. Some of the "sexist humor" was a kickback to the old days when the predominant male student body made fun of women as objects, and this tradition carried on until women students protested constant jokes about "seducing freshmen girls" or visiting high school students during orientation week that they felt was promoting dangerous attitudes about date rape, abuse or harassment of women.]

(3) Students are known for playing jokes ("pulling jacks") to disrupt the normal functioning on campus. In one case, which I wrote a letter in response that was published in the newspaper, students were fined for chanting during graduation. One person wrote in, claiming the university was private and did not have to respect "freedom of speech" which was for government/public institutions only. I wrote back and argued two points: (1) since the university claimed not to discriminate against students for religious beliefs, then students who believe in Constitutional rights of free speech should be allowed to exercise those standards freely; however (2) the First Amendment also protects the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" so that with free speech and press comes the equal responsibility not to abuse it to "disrupt the peace." So I argued that in the case of the students who disrupted an assembly, they were equally violating the spirit of the First Amendment that they were claiming to exercise. I compared it to "not yelling fire in a crowded theatre" that there are natural checks and balances to free speech/press within the same set of natural laws governing social order and civil society.

I think that letter is linked here if you want to quote this:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/letters.html#FIRST_AMENDMENT

I think it summarizes the natural limits on free speech/press WITHIN the same First Amendment. That is how I explain that natural laws have a built-in check and balance, using the First Amendment as an example.

If you don't agree with this interpretation of "peaceable assembly" as a natural check on free speech/press, you can also quote the 4th amendment about the "right to security" or 14th amendment about "equal protections" -- so if people want to claim Constitutional rights, they have to equally balance free exercise with the other laws within the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and other Constitutional laws and amendments to prevent abuse or imposition on the SAME rights of others. If not, if they exercise rights but infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same, then they are abusing the very law(s) they are claiming to invoke.

I think these natural laws exist and explain human behavior and responses, independent of the First Amendment (which happens to express these naturally occurring laws) and thus regardless of whether an institution is public/government and is "required" to respect these rights, or a group is private and is following these policies either by choice or by nature or by private agreement. Like the laws of gravity or physics, they exist naturally whether or not we are aware of them and write them down and agree to follow them.

Technically, the requirement to uphold Constitutional rights is only legally binding with government, or with public institutions which receive government funding. The semi-governmental groups, private corporations, and individuals have created "grey areas" where public pressure may help to equal protection Constitutional rights and freedoms based on equal respect, whether or not these can be legally enforced.