“A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, [] even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Part of a school’s “basic educational mission” is the inculcation of “fundamental values of habits and manners of civility essential to a democratic society.” Fraser, 478 U.S. at 681 (internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, public schools may permit, and even encourage, discussions of tolerance, equality and democracy without being required to provide equal time for student or other speech espousing intolerance, bigotry or hatred.

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.

As we have explained, however, although Tinker does not allow schools to restrict the non-invasive, nondisruptive expression of political viewpoints, it does permit school authorities to restrict “one particular opinion” if the expression would “impinge upon the rights 37 of other students” or substantially disrupt school activities.

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.

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.

I do usually disagree when I see your comments on other blogs, though.

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.

I think their heads might have exploded from confusion over whether to side with the homosexuals or the terrorists.