by OOTM
The Ninth Ciruit, the court responsible for criminalizing would-be-pledgers-of-allegiance in elementary schools across the Western United States, recently held that school systems may lawfully engage in viewpoint discrimination (PDF).
I waited to post this, because I was hoping to come across a newpaper article (for linking purposes) that clearly stated the facts in a complete and unbiased manner. Trust me, such an article does not exist.
The facts are (briefly) as follows: A school district sanctioned a local high school’s Gay-Straight Alliance to conduct a “Day of Silence” drawing attention to gay rights. As part of the function, the school permitted students to arrange displays and posters throughout the school supportive of gay rights, wear T-shirts supportive of gay rights, and cover their mouths with duct tape in an effort to draw attention to their silence … in support of gay rights.
One student, not in favor of gay rights, wore a shirt with the words “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned,” on the front and “Homosexuality is Shameful,” on the back. When the school told him to remove his shirt, the student refused and filed a law suit.
According to the Ninth Circuit, the student’s speech is unprotected, along with all other “‘instances of derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students’ minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation.” (p. 31) (In another place, the court points out that depictions of Confederate Flags would not be protected.)
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit concludes that tolerance is important - but only if the tolerance runs in the direction of tolerating the homosexual viewpoint. In fact, the Ninth Circuit explicitly says that schools “need not tolerate verbal assaults that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development.” (p. 23)
Unpack that last quote.
- “need not tolerate”
- “verbal assaults”
- “that may destroy”
- “the self-esteem”
- “of our most vulnerable teenagers”
- “and interfere with their educational development”
Each one of those bullet points is a post unto itself.
Exactly what has the educational mission become? Are we supposed to emphasize the three R’s or the fact that a few of our students prefer having sex with each other? Science or sex? Seriously, I want to know.
Allow me to re-word the court’s practical holding in layman’s terms: A point of view is not protected if the school district does not like it.
{ 6 } Comments
Just imagine what would happen if the most liberal, and most reversed, appeals court in the country had faced an identical case with one exception. What if the student wearing the t-shirt were a member of an Islamist organization dedicated to the violent imposition of Sharia law with regard to homosexuals.
I think their heads might have exploded from confusion over whether to side with the homosexuals or the terrorists.
I usually disagree with practically every sentence you write.
However, in this instance, I will agree with you that this case was probably decided wrongly. The kid should have been allowed to wear his stupid shirt.
But I think you’ve seriously mischaracterized several points in this post. Maybe you were being hyperbolic for rhetorical effect. But:
-Obviously the ruling does not say that this student “may not disagree” with anybody. If his shirt had simply said, “I disagree with the premise behind the Day of Silence,” I doubt there would have been any trouble.
-The court never made anyone who Pledges Allegiance a “criminal”.
-Do you really think that it is only gay students who “want to have sex with each other”? Furthermore, the Day of Silence is not about sex. At any rate, it’s far less about sex than the prom is.
Actually, I take back my first sentence. I don’t read your blog often enough to know whether I disagree with practically every sentence.
I do usually disagree when I see your comments on other blogs, though.
Then you should read more often, Brian.
Welcome.
As to your points (you may not have noticed, but) I did not draft this particular post. I’ll try to answer in any event.
True, “may not disagree” is a bit of hyperbole. I guess the student could technically disagree with the school district about whether homosexuality is shameful, he just isn’t allowed to say so. Freedom of thought is preserved! Freedom of expression, on the other hand, is not.
True, it wasn’t technically a crime to say the pledge under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. But, if a school district had defied the ruling, I bet the police would have eventually gotten involved — as they did in Alabama when the state Supreme Court Chief Justice defied a ruling regarding the display of the Ten Commandments.
True, heterosexual teens like sex too. I think OOTM’s point was that the heterosexual preferences of most students weren’t transformed into a cause that distracted from the core educational mission. By contrast, all the time and effort that went into the Day of Silence did distract from the core mission in order to benefit a minority of students with different sexual preferences. I think it’s a fair question: shouldn’t the school focus on teaching and stay out of the culture wars?
Being a homeschooling parent, though, that question doesn’t interest me much. I concluded a long time ago that the public schools cannot and will not avoid the culture wars (even though they should) — which is one reason among many that public schools will not be educating my children.
Brian,
Thanks for visiting, even if it was only long enough to attribute my hyperbolic rhetoric to someone else.
However, I have to disagree with the extent to which you believe my hyperbole reached. If you read the entire opinion (not that I expect you to), you will probably see why I concluded the protester probably wouldn’t be allowed to disagree publicly to any degree.
You suggest that he probably would be able to wear a shirt that said “I disagree with the premise behind the Day of Silence.” But nothing in the opinion suggests that is the case. If anything, the opinion suggests he would not be permitted to wear such a shirt.
That’s a mighty big “or” planted right there in the middle of the opinion. That “or” means there is no “substantial disruption” requirement. Therefore, the kinder, softer wording you suggested is no different from the wording the protester had on his shirt. Both represent the same viewpoint - a viewpoint the school believes “impinges on the rights” of other students.
While I am quoting the opinion, let me add this section:
Post a Comment