Introduction
- What is students freedom of expression
Discuss its extent and limitations in modern societies of students’ freedom of expression
Explain some diverse interpretations of students’ freedom of expression
How students’ freedom of expression is unique in relation to student publications
Conclusion
- Personal views regarding students freedom of expression emerging from chapter 10
Abstract
This essay encompasses discussions pertaining to students’ freedom of expression as it pertains to schools in United States of America. A case study contained in chapter 10 of teacher and the law will reviewed in an attempt to reflect on what is students freedom of expression; its extent and limitations in modern societies; explain some diverse interpretations of students’ freedom of expression; how students’ freedom of expression is distinct in relation to student publications and offer my personal views regarding students’ freedom of expression emerging from chapter 10
Introduction
What is students’ freedom of expression?
The first amendment of the US constitution clearly provides for freedom of speech, but it would appear that students who happen to be considered subordinates within a school system could be deprived this right while within the confines of an educational building or institution. However, since this amendment has been enacted there have been immense controversies regarding its true application to students’ freedom of expression within the school environment. Consequently, the amendment seemed to lack clarity regarding how it ought to be applied in relation to student’s expression of freedom.
The case study in review Tinker versus Des Moines Independent Community School District students were suspended for protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black arm band to school. This expression of freedom violated the school’s rule of wearing armbands. Importantly, the rule did not specify wearing armbands as symbols. When this case was taken to the Supreme court ther presiding judge ruled in favor of the students’ first amendment right to freedom of expression regardless of the schools’ administration ruling that the behavior was disturbing and could evoke a riot (Eastland, 2000)
Arguments against the school administration’s decision to suspend the students were that there was no proof of "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance” (Eastland, 2000, p10) . The Supreme Court continued to contend that if a situation developed while wearing the arm band in the school environment towards creating disturbance in the school curriculum then school authorities could take appropriate action to stop the disturbance by prohibiting use of armbands. However, suspending students for peacefully protesting in school by wearing armbands deprived them of their constitutional right to freedom of expression as set forth in the first amendment. Essentially, the ruling confirmed that freedom of expression for both teacher and student did not end within the confines of a school environment (Eastland, 2000).
Discuss its extent and limitations in modern societies of students’ freedom of expression
Many questions are being asked after this momentous decision was given by the court in 1969. They all seem to be seeking answers regarding extent and limitations of students’ freedom of expression in relation to whether schools have a right to restrict this privilege. From the case study it is clear that once there is no violation of the first amendment provisions students do have freedom of expression. For example, Schimmel, Stellman and Fletcher (2010) ask if the decision given by the Supreme Court in the case Tinker versus Des Moines Independent Community School District applies to students’ freedom of expression on the internet (Schimmel et.al. 2010)
The prompt response is ‘yes’ citing the case of a Pennsylvania student, Justin Layshock who created an absurd profile of his principal and circulated it on the internet through myspace.com. When the incident reached the attention of school administration the student was suspended. Applying the Tinker principle the court ruled in favor of the student. Reasons offered by the court reflected that the internet is not private property of the school. Even though it internet can be accessed at school it did not give school administration the authority to censor information contained therein. Importantly, no disruption of the school curriculum occurred (Schimmel et.al. 2010).
Further, applying limitations of this principle to hate statements and attacks within the school environment administrations have adapted polices to protect vulnerable students from situations, which can escalate towards bullying episodes. Indirectly, these incidences could create disturbances in the school curriculum. Similarly, Tinker’s principle did not apply in the 2007 New York state student’s case. The student sent hate messages reading, ‘kill Mr. VandenMolen.’ While investigations revealed that he did not really mean to kill his English teacher discipline was upheld since the message could have created disruption in the school‘s curriculum and activities when it reached the hearing of the teacher targeted (Schimmel et.al. 2010).
Explain some diverse interpretations of students’ freedom of expression
Diverse interpretations regarding the first amendment surfaced in 2007 at a California school when lesbian students were disciplined for expressing their affection in a public school environment. One student argued that the school violated her right to freedom of expression. Essentially, the school policy did not specify the type of freedom of expression that was prohibited. Further, questions are asked regarding students privilege/ freedom expression of writing papers on religious issues whether teachers can restrict such expression (Schimmel et.al. 2010).
Schimmel, Stellman and Fletcher (2010) contend that they do. The authors cited a Tennessee teacher’s case, which was upheld by the court. The teacher, Dana Ramsey, refused to accept a research paper written by a student, entitled ‘The.. Jesus Christ.’ When the parents of the student contested the matter as a violation of the student’s right based on the first amendment the teachers reaction was upheld by the court as being non-violation enforcing the right to act in accordance with the curriculum. Ramsey had the right of broad way in determining whether the document was consistent with the curriculum (Schimmel et.al. 2010).
Next the student’s right to academic freedom has been questioned in this chapter in relation to the first amendment and Tinker’s principles; Schimmel, Stellman and Fletcher (2010) advance that they do not. The liberty they have extends to being able to select courses rom a given curriculum. Constitutionally they do not because courts have rules against students having the right to choose texts neither teaching methods. Again the authors cited a case in a Wisconsin school board where a film was banned from being shown because it was Rated- R. A petition was later signed by 400 students protesting the decision stating that the school board violated their first amendment rights by banning the film without viewing it first. Actually the school board based their decision on an outside source they claimed. However, the court upheld the school board’s decision by indicating that these students were attempting to disrupt the school curriculum by trying to change it (Schimmel et.al. 2010).
How students’ freedom of expression is unique in relation to student publications
There are limits to which a school’s administration can censor school sponsored publications and plays as it relates to the U.S. constitution first amendment. Schimmel, Stellman and Fletcher (2010) referenced the new Jersey incident involving student, Brian Disalet’ s reviews of the Mississippi Burning to highlight that once there was no valid educational purpose neither considered unreasonable censorship would violated the students constitutional right. Further according to Hazelwood they do not have the right to censor the contents school sponsored publications (Schimmel et.al. 2010).
The U.S. Courts have even sanctioned school boards activities regarding preview of both non-school (Underground) and school sponsored publications. A Minnesota high school guidelines were used as a reference by the courts to prove that many of these prohibition lacked valid standardization to be valid; therefore violation the student’s freedom of expression according to their constitutional right. Once the policy did not give school administrations an opportunity to prohibit the content from circulation then there was no violation even if they requested to see it before the process was completed (Schimmel et.al, 2010)
Conclusion
Personal views regarding students’ freedom of expression emerging from chapter 10
Chapter 10 of Teachers and the Law offered insights into the extent teachers can go in restricting student’s freedom of expression as it relates to the first amendment and Tinker’s principle emerging from wearing of black armband in school incident. Freedom expression has been explored from a perspective of gay/lesbian interpretations; religious, political topics being written as research papers as well as press/ publication freedom of expression issues.
In my opinion the first amendment is appropriate in its attempt to allow some degree of free expression in schools by both teachers and students. However, always the courts will have to be the mitigating resource regarding interpretations of the amendment to balance relations among students; teachers, administration and school boards. In this chapter most of the cases referenced including Tinker a decisions seemed to be based on whether these incidents were disruptive to the school curriculum. Education/learning is the reason for school. This is executed through a curriculum. Therefore, it must be protected.
References
Eastland, T. (2000). Freedom of Expression in the Supreme Court The Defining Cases. United
States of America: Rowman & Littlefield publishers.
Schimmel, D. Leslie R. Stellman, L., & Fletcher, L. (2010). Teachers and the Law. Pearson
Abstract
