MORSE V. FREDERICK (2007)

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Introduction

In 2002, Joseph Frederick received from his high school principal a lengthy suspension for displaying a fourteen-foot banner that said, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." His references to marijuana use and to Christianity were seen as controversial and potentially disruptive. However, he was not at school when he wielded the sign. He was across the street from his school at the Olympic Torch Relay, a public event. Administrators, arguing that the event was school-sanctioned, disciplined him for breaking the school's rule against promoting illegal substances. With the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations, Frederick challenged his punishment in court based on his constitutional right to free speech. At the core of the issue is whether school codes banning offensive, disruptive, or harassing speech violate students' rights to free expression. Frederick's case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, and in June 2007 the Court ruled against the former student. This paper discusses the very popular case Morse v. Frederick (2007).

Discussion

Critics blast school speech codes on the grounds that young people have a right to expression just as adults do. While most people concede that speech that is threatening or significantly disruptive should be limited at school, these critics charge that young people are too often punished for expressing themselves in harmless ways. In 2006, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that 96 percent of the colleges studied banned expression that is constitutionally protected. A problem with rules governing speech at school, some assert, is that the vagueness of such rules allows school officials to go too far in punishing minor statements. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, for instance, prohibits "disrespect for persons," a policy that many people say is overbroad. As a result of speech codes, declares Eli Lehrer of American Enterprise, "Free speech no longer exists on American college campuses." Prohibiting speech that does not cause harm also teaches American youths that their rights do not matter, making them more likely to relinquish those rights when they become adults, free speech advocates contend. In any case, they argue, schools are educational institutions and therefore must allow open inquiry and reasoned argument even if it may offend some people. Lehrer points out, "No American court has ever upheld a right never to be offended." (Andrew, 2007)

Proponents of speech codes counter that schools are places of learning and have a special responsibility to make all students comfortable and safe. In fact, the case, King v. M.S.D. of Washington Township (2003) found that schools could be held liable for neglecting to protect students who are verbally threatened and later assaulted. Administrators and parents argue that students' freedom of expression should be limited if it may pose a threat to others or to the educational values of the school. David L. Stader, an associate professor at the University of Wyoming, is one member of this camp. He notes,

Courts have never granted the same rights ...