School Discipline
|
Posted: 07/02/07
|
|
School Discipline
By Thomas E. Brewton
Enforcing proper behavior is anathema to liberals, but essential to
learning.
The recent Supreme Court decision in the MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK
case, better known as the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" case, has generated
controversy, both because of the Court's decision, and because of the
concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Facts of the case were the following:
"At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner
Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner
stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS," which she regarded as promoting illegal
drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such
messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down
the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to
the event-respondent Frederick-refused, Morse confiscated the banner
and later suspended him."
The Court's ruling, expressed in the opinion of Chief Justice John
Roberts, was:
"Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their
care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging
illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate
the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and
suspending Frederick.... Our cases make clear that students do not
"shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression
at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). At the same time, we have
held that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are
not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other
settings," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682
(1986), and that the rights of students "must be 'applied in light of
the special characteristics of the school environment.'"
The Court's decision was opposed by many people, particularly liberal-
Progressives.
What really agitated them, however, was the concurring opinion by
Justice Clarence Thomas.
NYU Professor Jonathan Zimmerman sums up the liberal-Progressive-
socialist reaction in Got discipline? ( http://www.latimes.com/news/
opinion/commentary/la-oe-zimmerman28jun28,1,6696557.story ), which
appeared in the June 28, 2007 edition of the Los Angeles Times:
"In a free-speech ruling, Justice Thomas misstates the purpose of
education.
"WHAT ARE schools for?
"For the last decade, I've taught a history course with that title at
New York University. My students and I examine the different purposes
that Americans have assigned to public schools, including:
"A. to teach the great humanistic traditions of the West;
"B. to develop the individual interests of the child;
"C. to promote social justice;
"D. to prepare efficient workers.
"Over the last four centuries, Americans have struggled to balance
these goals - and many others - in their schools. To Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas, however, there's only one right answer:
"E. to instill discipline and obedience
"That's what Thomas wrote this week in his strange concurring opinion
in Morse vs. Frederick..."
Note first the prominent educational role Professor Zimmerman assigns
to promoting social justice, which is a code term for socialistic
redistribution of income from "the rich" to "the workers." Liberals,
Professor Zimmerman apparently among them, believe that breaking down
the conventions of civilized society represents progress toward
social justice and that discipline represents ignorance.
In a socialized society, there are no titles of respect. Everyone is
"citizen" or "comrade." Why should teachers have any specially
privileged position empowering them to discipline classroom
troublemakers?
Note second that, while Professor Zimmerman says that Justice Thomas
misstates the purpose of education, Professor Zimmerman completely
misrepresents Justice Thomas's conclusion.
What Justice Thomas in fact wrote was:
"In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As
originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a
right to free speech in public schools.... the idea of treating
children as though it were still the 19th century would find little
support today. But I see no constitutional imperative requiring
public schools to allow all student speech."
Justice Thomas added:
"I write separately to state my view that the standard set forth in
"Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.", 393 U. S.
503 (1969), is without basis in the Constitution..."Tinker" effected
a sea change in students' speech rights, extending them well beyond
traditional bounds. The case arose when a school punished several
students for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam
War.... Determining that the punishment infringed the students' First
Amendment rights, this Court created a new standard for students'
freedom of speech in public schools:
"....[Under Tinker] unless a student's speech would disrupt the
educational process, students had a fundamental right to speak their
minds (or wear their armbands)-even on matters the school disagreed
with or found objectionable....
"Justice Black dissented, criticizing the Court for "subject[ing] all
the public schools in the country to the whims and caprices of their
loudest-mouthed, but maybe not their brightest, students." Id., at
525. He emphasized the instructive purpose of schools: "[T]axpayers
send children to school on the premise that at their age they need to
learn, not teach." Id., at 522. In his view, the Court's decision
"surrender[ed] control of the American public school system to public
school students....Once a society that generally respected the
authority of teachers, deferred to their judgment, and trusted them
to act in the best interest of school children, we now accept
defiance, disrespect, and disorder as daily occurrences in many of
our public schools."
Note that Justice Black was the Court's most consistent voice of
absolute freedom of speech of every kind, no matter how offensive.
For those doubting the accuracy of his assessment, see Marc
Epstein's City Journal article ( http://www.city-journal.org/html/
eon2007-04-27me.html ) "Swimming with Barracudas: Violent students
need to be expelled."
In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas continued:
"Because public schools were initially created as substitutes for
private schools, when States developed public education systems in
the early 1800's, no one doubted the government's ability to educate
and discipline children as private schools did. Like their private
counterparts, early public schools were not places for freewheeling
debates or exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled
"a core of common values" in students and taught them self-control....
"Teachers instilled these values not only by presenting ideas but
also through strict discipline..... Schools punished students for
behavior the school considered disrespectful or wrong. Parkerson 65
(noting that children were punished for idleness, talking, profanity,
and slovenliness). Rules of etiquette were enforced, and courteous
behavior was demanded. Reese 40. To meet their educational
objectives, schools required absolute obedience....
"Through the legal doctrine of 'in loco parentis', courts upheld the
right of schools to discipline students, to enforce rules, and to
maintain order...
"One of the most sacred duties of parents, is to train up and qualify
their children, for becoming useful and virtuous members of society;
this duty cannot be effectually performed without the ability to
command obedience, to control stubbornness, to quicken diligence, and
to reform bad habits . . . . The teacher is the substitute of the
parent . . .
"A review of the case law shows that 'in loco parentis' allowed
schools to regulate student speech as well.....The doctrine of 'in
loco parentis' limited the ability of schools to set rules and
control their classrooms in almost no way. It merely limited the
imposition of excessive physical punishment...."
Click Here to Read and Post Feedback
Send this page to a friend
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
605 Views
Printer Friendly Version |
Return to home
|
|
|
