Free speech?
Protests and the national anthem: FSW lesson
Title
Analyzing and creating meaningful discussion about free speech issues over protests during the national anthem
Description
Discussion on whether refusing to stand during the national anthem is an acceptable and effective form of protest have grown in recent months. This lesson enables students an opportunity to research and clarify their views as they share them with others.
Objectives
- Students will analyze legal and ethical aspects of the issue.
- Students will share their findings.
- Students will discuss what they find.
- Students will report their position on the issue using information gathered from research and discussions.
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.11-12.7 | Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively) as well as in words in order to address a question or solve a problem. |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.4 | Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone (e.g., how the language of a court opinion differs from that of a newspaper). |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.5 | Analyze in detail how an author’s ideas or claims are developed and refined by particular sentences, paragraphs, or larger portions of a text (e.g., a section or chapter). |
Length
60 minutes for two days
Materials / resources
Access to internet resources on the issues of standing for the Pledge of Allegiance by citizens in and outside schools.
Access to the US Supreme Court decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Background on this issue:
The teacher would share these quotes introduce the assignment and to background the issue.
From Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin: ““I think it’s disgusting, frankly, I can appreciate the fact that people have freedom of speech, people can stand for, figuratively and literally, things that they choose to, but to use an opportunity to denigrate our nation’s flag — it’s not the flag and it’s not the national anthem itself, what it represents is the sacrifice of one and a half million Americans who died.”
http://mycn2.com/politics/bevin-calls-athlete-protests-during-national-anthem-disgusting
From the court decision: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”
“We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.”
Lesson step-by-step
Step 1 — introduction to the assignment and homework at the end of the session the day before (10 minutes)
The teacher should ask how many students are aware of the varied protests, in and outside of schools, against standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. The teacher would point out the introductory quotes as representative of the sides on this issue.
The class would discuss pros and cons of the issue before the teacher introduces the assignment: researching current events on the issue, examining legal and ethical positions on the issue and preparing a personal position statement either as a letter to the editor to local or national media or in a personal blog.
Stress that students can begin information gathering at home using live sources as well as digital ones.
Day 1 –
Step 2 — Research (15 minutes)
The teacher will remind students of the assignment and give them 15 minutes to add to and organize information they gathered the night before. Students should also begin to formulate a statement of personal position on the issue. Tell them they will be expected to discuss possible positions and arguments during the second 35 minutes.
Step 3 — Discussion (35 minutes)
Ask students to share information they gathered with others in the class. They could have made pro-con lists based on information they gathered and shared.
Then, students could use of PowerPoint, whiteboard or Google Docs to list possible positions and/or questions they might have about the issue. Such lists should be available for student use after class by them copying the lists and positions or having access to the Google Doc.
Focus during the discussion should be to verify information for possible positions, to clarify issues involved, to develop personal positions and support for them. Students should prepare annotated bibliographies for sources they used as a way for all to examine credibility and reliability.
Step 4 — Clarify assignment (10 minutes)
Reiterate the details and purpose of the assignment and ask students to have a draft of the statement of position or blog post for the next day’s class.
Day 2 –
Step 5 — Group coaching and editing (40 minutes)
Students should break into groups of three for peer coaching and position revision. The teacher can move from group to ask questions and offer suggestions as asked. The teacher should not edit student work but encourage peer coaching and editing. Final coaching and editing should enable all student work to be sent to or posted on designated media.
Step 6 — Final discussion and statement emailing or posting (10 minutes)
Conclude the assignment with final discussion and coaching. Assist students as necessary in the mailing and posting of their statement of position.
Step 7 — Assessment (10 minutes)
Have students discuss what they did, how others might react to their statements as well as what they learned about the issue and about issues surrounding it. They should also discuss how they might handle any responses they receive.
Differentiation
Option 1 – Additional media possibilities include broadcast personal statements, video statements or podcasts. Additional lessons could involve pro-con panel discussions or community forums to involve larger groups.
Option 2 – The teacher could organize the class to have a debate whether this form of speech should be allow in society and as a part of school activities. Discussion of the issue and positions on it could take place before the debate. After the debate, students could write a reflection on their views of the issue before and after the debate.
Extension
You could also work with students to assist them in using social media to discuss their experience and what they learned. Another lesson could focus on student reaction to and comment on this comment from Bevin: “If you’re a superintendent, if you’re a principal, if you’re a high school coach, step up, set an example,” Bevin said. “For us to allow everybody to be free range chickens, to not encourage them to know what they are doing and what the impact is and what the denigration of respect is something that is the responsibility of the adults to communicate to these young people.”
- Thanks to Jamie Miller, du Pont Manual High School, Louisville, Kentucky, for sharing information about the Kentucky governor’s quote.
JEA-SPRC, SPLC condemn Neshaminy school district for
punishing newspaper editor, adviser
in ongoing fight over ‘Redskins’ name
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Student Press Law Center and Journalism Education Association Scholastic Press Rights Commission condemned the actions of the Neshaminy School District in Pennsylvania Wednesday, following the District’s retaliatory and illegal actions calculated to punish thePlaywickian student newspaper, its editors and its adviser.
In response to an editorial board decision not to print the word “Redskins” because of its use as a racial slur, the administration handed down a decision this week to pull $1,200 of funding from the publication; to suspend its adviser, Tara Huber, for two days; and to suspend Editor-in-Chief Gillian McGoldrick from the newspaper until the end of September.
It has long been the law of this country that no government official can compel a student to speak or adopt words with which she disagrees. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Imposing discipline for refusing to participate in the use of a racial slur is not only unconstitutional; it is un-American in the extreme.
These actions come at a time when a transparently illegal publications policy remains on the books at the District level, one that also purports to compel the use of certain words and attempts to hijack ownership of student work. These are, at their core, bullying tactics—forcing people to say words, then turn over their property.
Competent educators of good conscience would never resort to bullying tactics to perpetuate any ideology, let alone a racially offensive one.
We encourage the students to explore their legal options and urge the State of Pennsylvania to investigate whether the Neshaminy School Board members should be removed.
Contact:
Frank LoMonte, Executive Director, Student Press Law Center
703.807.1904 / director@splc.org
John Bowen, Director, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission
330.676.3666 / jabowen@kent.edu
Students, the First Amendment and the Supreme Court
by Jan Ewell
Permission granted to use at will for non-commercial purposes
The Bill of Rights and Schools
The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, became the law of the land in 1791, but 216 years later in 2007 Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Morse v. Frederick, “As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public school.”
Thomas was an originalist, one who interprets the Constitution and the Bill of Rights according to what the Founding Fathers—the original authors—intended. Public education was virtually non-existent at the time. Thomas says the Founding Fathers did not intend the Bill of Rights to limit the power of schools and were not specifically concerned about the rights of public school students.
Fortunately for the student press, the other eight justices instead debated which First Amendment rights students should have. They looked at past court decisions for precedents, that is, earlier rulings by the court, that set a rule or pattern for deciding similar cases.
The precedent for almost 100 years was the 1833 Supreme Court decision in Barron v. Baltimore, which said the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. According to Barron, “Congress shall make no law” meant the United States government—Congress–could not make laws “abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.” States and cities—and school districts–could and did make laws that established religions, and abridged free speech and freedom the press, and limited the right to assemble. “A local school teacher was not Congress within the meaning of `Congress shall make no law,’” said David L. Hudson Jr. in Let the Students Speak! Only the federal government was forbidden to make such laws.
The Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to the laws and practices of states starting in 1925 with Gitlow v. New York. By 1965, in Gideon v. Wainwright, the court indicated that all forms of government—not just the federal government–were restrained by the Constitution and its amendments, including the Bill of Rights. Public schools are a form of government.
Read MoreKey cases
Cases that enhance student rights
• Tinker v. Des Moines
This 1969 decision stated students do not lose their rights at the schoolhouse gate
— http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21
— http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=503
— http://www.landmarkcases.org/tinker/home.html
— http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/tinker/home.html
• Dean v. Utica
This Michigan case substantively supported the Tinker decision where student media has either been practicing as a public forum or is designated as one. Is precise in stating Hazelwood does not cover all student expression in high schools
— http://en.allexperts.com/e/d/de/dean_v._utica.htm
— http://www.splc.org/pdf/deanvutica.pdf
— http://www.splc.org/pdf/utica_arrow.pdf
— http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=911
— http://www.studentpress.org/nspa/trends/~law0205hs.html
• Lexington v. Yeo
This First Circuit case demonstrated the importance of practicing forum status and of student decision making.
— http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980106/961623.htm
— http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=209&edition=9
— http://www.yeodoug.com/articles/text/livefree.html
— http://openjurist.org/131/f3d/241/yeo-v-town-of-lexington
• Draudt v Wooster City School District
This sixth circuit decision set forth a legal test for distinguishing between nonpublic and public forum scholastic media. The court held that nonpublic forum media are subject to the Hazelwood standard. Publications classified as public forums are protected by the much higher Tinker-based standard.
–– http://www.splc.org/law_library.asp?id=35
— http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/studentexpression/cases_resources_summary.aspx
— http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2899
— http://www.studentpress.org/nspa/trends/~law0203hs.html
• Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No.
26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853
This decision ruled that the First Amendment limits a school board’s ability to remove or ban books in school libraries.
— http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_2043
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
This Supreme Court decision protected a student from being forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.
— http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnette.html
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624
— http://supreme.justia.com/us/319/624/case.html
Cases that inhibit or are cited to limit student rights
• Bethel School District v. Fraser
This decision gave school officials the ability to limit student speech of a lesser standards than substantial and material disruption.
— http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667
— http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/holtcases/bethel.html
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=478&invol=675
— http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13701
— http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=35
• Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
This US Supreme Court decision gave schools the ability to limit student expression if student media are not public forums for student expression by policy or practice and if school officials have a legitimate pedagogical reason.
— http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836/
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=484&invol=260
— http://www.splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=4
— http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9216/hazelwood.htm
— http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Hazelwood_v_Kuhlmeier
• Frederick v. Morse
Commonly known as Bong Hits 4 Jesus, this decision created further limits on Tinker’s support of student expression.
— http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278/
— http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_LsGoDWC0o
— http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278
— http://www.shmoop.com/free-speech/bethel-v-fraser-morse-v-frederick.html
Cases affecting advisers
• Garcetti v. Ceballos
This decision limits the speech rights of pubic employees in many situations when they speak as school employees.
— http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-473
— http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_473
— http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Garcetti_v_Ceballos
• Pickering v. Board of Education
This decision supported a teacher’s claim that a letter written critical of the school was protected by the First Amendment
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=391&invol=563
— http://supreme.justia.com/us/391/563/
— http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_510
Mixed decisions
• Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie School District
This decision is about a T—shirt with an anti-gay message. It is a split case with strong language by the ruling viewpoint dismissing the credibility of student speech in any form.
–– http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=3430
— http://americansfortruth.com/news/appeals-court-says-il-school-cannot-ban-be-happy-not-gay-t-shirts.html (includes link to full text, which is important to see the two sides of the decision)
— http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19965
— http://www.splc.org/pdf/Neuqua7thCircuit.pdf
— http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1748&year=2008
General decisions/lesson plans
• Times v Sullivan
This Supreme Court decision established the concept of actual malice with libel.
— http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254
— http://supreme.justia.com/us/376/254/case.html
— http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=New_York_Times_Co_v_Sullivan
• First Amendment timeline
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/first/timeline.php
• Education for Freedom lesson plans
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/index.htm
Read More