What, students have rights? Since 1943
(West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
Quick Tip27: Student First Amendment rights
by Jan Ewell
Before the Barnette decision, when students came into conflict with public schools, the courts decided their cases—often against the students—without mentioning students’ right. They considered if the punishment was excessive (beating with a rawhide strap was okay in 1859). They also debated if it was the parents’ right or the schools’ right to discipline the students. The First Amendment was never mentioned.
Gathie and Marie Barnett* were attending Slip Hill Grade School in Charleston, West Virginia, when America entered World War II in December, 1941. The school district installed flags in classrooms (replacing pictures of flags) and required all students to salute the flag. The West Virginia State Board of Education passed rules in January 1942 requiring the flag salute and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which Congress would formally adopt June, 1942.
The Barnett family, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, felt the practice of saluting the flag was a form of idolatry and would be a violation of their religion. As Gathie said some 60 years after the case, “We were taught that bowing down to the flag, saluting it, was like a bowing down and giving reverence to it—it was like an idol. So we believe definitely not to worship idols.”
[pullquote]If there is a fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official high or petty shall prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by work or acts their faith therein.”––Justice Robert H. Jackson[/pullquote]
The Supreme Court released its decision in the students’ favor on Flag Day, June 14, 1943.
The decision: Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote these memorable words in favor of students’ rights: “If there is a fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official high or petty shall prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by work or acts their faith therein.”
Though the Supreme Court did not specifically address student press rights until 1988, the Barnette case is essential to student journalists. It limits the government’s ability to restrict religion, the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. It found public schools are the government. It established that students as young as elementary school are protected by the First Amendment .
Justice Jackson wrote, “That we are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.
*A court clerk misspelled their name as Barnette
Resources:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
Read MoreAs ETHS administrators tighten the grip,
they may want to heed pastoral advice
by Stan Zoller, MJE
I had the opportunity to attend an event that was simply called “We the People: Making Our Voices Heard.”
It featured an “advocacy resource fair” followed by presentations addressing the “State of Our Democracy.”
The first speaker hit the nail on the head about the event’s importance.
“We are doing what we should be doing. Citizens of the World need to take responsibility of being good citizenry; we need to consider the state of our democracy because an informed citizenry makes good decisions.”
Bravo.
And who made this statement?
A local politician? Nope.
An educator or school board member? Nope.
A community activist with a special agenda? Nope.
An impassioned journalist? Nope.
It was Norval Brown. Wait, let me clarify that – Pastor Norval Brown.
Brown is Pastor at Christ United Methodist Church in Deerfield, Illinois, which hosted the event because it hosts community events on a regular basis.
Attendees were area residents and representatives of various civic organizations such as Common Cause and local chapters of the League of Women Voters.
Unfortunately, there were no school districts or school boards represented.
And this is where I erred. I should have extended an invitation to the Evanston Township High School (ETHS) Board of Education.
It might have learned a thing or two about civic engagement and why it is important our voices be heard – including student voices.
As was reported here Oct. 12, administrators at ETHS saw fit to confiscate and prohibit distribution of the Sept. 22 issue of The Evanstonian, the school newspaper because it had articles on student use of marijuana. Students were also ordered to remove the paper from the Evanstonian website.
To recap, several members of the Evanstonian staff along with myself and a representative from a local community activist organization made statements at a school building. If there was a ray of hope, as noted in my Oct. 12 posting, it was that one School Board member, Jonathan Baum, called for the matter to be discussed in open session at the next School Board meeting, Monday, Oct. 23.
The district released the following statement Thursday, Oct. 12:
Statement Regarding September 22, 2017 Evanstonian Articles
On September 22, 2017, the Evanston Township High School (ETHS) student newspaper published a series of articles under the heading The Pot Thickens… The two-page spread features six articles, including 6 Questions for a Drug Dealer and School Stress Causes Marijuana Usage. Both articles promote illegal conduct that also violates school policy. For example, the Drug Dealer article states that a reason to sell marijuana is to make money, as much as one hundred-sixty dollars per ounce. The School Stress article states that using marijuana makes a student funnier and more confident. The article goes on to state that a “feeling of euphoria and bliss” is caused by a chemical in marijuana.
Dr. Marcus Campbell, Principal of ETHS, collaborated with the ETHS administrative team and legal counsel in reviewing the published articles. Dr. Campbell determined that the articles glorify both drug use and drug dealing, messages that are detrimental to ETHS students.
The U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Speech Right of Student Journalists Act both provide student journalists with certain rights to speech that ETHS celebrates. Those rights are limited. When student journalism incites unlawful acts, violation of school policy, or disrupts the school, the administration has the authority to impose limits. The articles on September 22, 2017 did cross these lines and were removed from circulation for that reason.
The statement has more holes in it than a Dunkin’ Donuts. To begin, the U.S. Constitution does not address student press rights because, odds are there was no student media when the Constitution was written. But why sweat details.
Secondly, there is an abysmal lack of clarity regarding Illinois’ Speech Rights of Scholastic Journalists Act. As noted in my Oct. 12 posting, there are four restrictions on scholastic journalists. They address libel, unwarranted invasion of privacy, violation of federal or state law and incitement of students to commit an unlawful act. Period.
A third component that is most irritating is the procedures detailed in the statement are not what students said transpired. Principal Marcus Campbell approved the issue before it was distributed. It was not until the next day when English and Reading Department Chair Samone Jones ordered the confiscation.
If there was a meeting with legal counsel students, parents, faculty, staff and the public were not made aware of it. For good reason. It did not occur until after Jones ordered the confiscation. Odds are it also did not occur until after Oct. 9 School Board meeting because school officials were not expecting the subject be brought to light at a School Board meeting.
The statement shamefully infers students lied to the School Board and Campbell did not approve the paper.
The statement was issued Oct. 12. The next day student staff members met with Campbell and Superintendent Eric Witherspoon. It appears the ETHS administration is flexing its intimidation muscle as students and the adviser appear reluctant to respond to emails. Why? Perhaps because they have been warned against sharing information and fear retribution.
My sources indicated that during the meeting Witherspoon said the journalism teacher was responsible for teaching what he called “journalistic shortcomings.” Additionally, sources tell me Witherspoon made it clear the school could decide not to offer journalism and that the school could “yank the paper next year.”
Witherspoon reportedly supported Jones’ action, saying she has the responsibility to represent the whole school, and there must be “journalistic integrity” and the Evanstonian was not their “personal blog.”
Campbell reportedly told students they “could have worked through this.” What he forgot is they cooperated by showing him the edition before it was scheduled to distributed. By saying it “could have been worked out” is like installing a smoke detector after the fire department has been called.
Efforts are under way to gain additional information using Illinois FOI laws.
In the meantime, it’s not clear who Witherspoon, Campbell, Jones and the rest of the Board are going to listen to because they seem to have their own ideas.
There is, however, one person they should listen to.
Pastor Brown.
Read MoreWhen hatred speaks, we must speak back
Exploring the First Amendment on Constitution Day
by Kristin Taylor
In 2004, Senator Robert Byrd attached an amendment to a federal spending bill to create a new national observance: Constitution Day. This amendment required public schools and government offices “to provide educational programs to promote a better understanding of the Constitution.”
“I hope that kids understand that in this country, everything that we do in everyday life is touched upon by the Constitution of the United States,” he said in an interview. “It protects our liberties and it protects our freedom of speech. It protects our religion. It protects the freedom of speech so the newspapers can tell us the news every day.”
As a member of the Scholastic Press Rights Committee, it is especially important to me that students explore the First Amendment on Constitution Day, a critically important conversation to have in the face of today’s political climate and the rise of hate speech.
The 2017 Newseum’s State of the First Amendment survey showed an uptick in political speech this year — petition and assembly are two of the five freedoms, and almost half of those surveyed took advantage of them this year. It also showed overall agreement that a watchdog press is crucial, yet 22.5 percent of participants supported the claim that First Amendment freedom protection goes too far.
I suspect that number would be higher were the survey to happen today in the wake of Charlottesville and similar events.
Like many educators, I am troubled by the uptick in hate speech across the country and by white supremacists’ use of the term “free speech” to label rallies that are really about hatred. But as despicable as hate speech is, the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, it is still protected by the First Amendment. It is not among the categories of unprotected speech defined by court cases over the years.
How can we face our students of color, our Jewish students or other students from marginalized groups and tell them that supporting the First Amendment means supporting the right of groups like the KKK or Nazis to spew this kind of hatred?
The American Bar Association has a good article to start the conversation. It outlines the difference between hateful speech and hateful acts using relevant court cases, and it defines libertarian and communitarian viewpoints on the issue. It also gives an example of how this played out on one college campus.
[pullquote]A more compelling question to ask our students is if they trust our government — and future governments — to decide what is offensive. Some European countries do, and this suggests that democratic societies can have reasonable, differing views on the matter. But others argue “the freer the speech, the stronger the democracy.”[/pullquote]
But I think a more compelling question to ask our students is if they trust our government — and future governments — to decide what is offensive. Some European countries do, and this suggests that democratic societies can have reasonable, differing views on the matter. But others argue “the freer the speech, the stronger the democracy.”
In my experience, my more liberal students are quick to say the government should ban offensive speech, and my more conservative students believe everyone is afraid to speak because of “political correctness.”
To even begin a meaningful conversation, students first need the facts, and Constitution Day is a great time to provide them.
I recommend starting by clarifying that the First Amendment is about how the government doesn’t have a right to censor or punish speech; it has no bearing on how private citizens, companies or employers choose to react. White supremacists’ constitutional right to speak will not shield them from counter-protests, public humiliation via social media or personal consequences, such as being fired by a private employer. Similarly, social media platforms owned by private companies such as Facebook or Twitter are not public forums set up by the government, so they have the right to censor any content they deem offensive.
This leads into the second point: the danger in giving the government the power to censor is that there isn’t a common understanding of “offensive.”
In a blog post explaining why the ACLU filed a lawsuit defending provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech, James Esseks, Director of the LGBT & HIV Project, expressed the deep divide between Yiannopoulos’ hateful speech and the ACLU’s core values: “Here at the ACLU, we vehemently disagree with Mr. Yiannopoulos’ views. We work hard, every day, with the very communities he targets, to fight for equal rights and dignity for all. We recognize that his words cause grievous pain to many individuals, their families, and their loved ones.”
However, he goes on to write, “Without free speech protections, all civil rights advocacy could be shut down by the people in power, precisely because government doesn’t agree with the ideas activists advance. That was true of the civil rights fights of the past, it’s true of the movements facing pitched battles today, and it will be true of the movements of the future that are still striving to be heard.”
Many people believe speech about such issues as abortion, gender identity or sexuality are offensive, Esseks argues, and “if First Amendment protections are eroded at any level, it’s not hard to imagine the government successfully pushing one or more of those arguments in court.”
[pullquote]This is the heart of the First Amendment — the question of whether we trust the government to regulate our speech and define what is offensive and what is not, or if we want to retain that freedom ourselves.[/pullquote]
This is the heart of the First Amendment — the question of whether we trust the government to regulate our speech and define what is offensive and what is not, or if we want to retain that freedom ourselves.
That said, student editorial boards are not “the government.” They can and should make ethical decisions about what to publish, and they have a right to refuse to publish hateful speech, though I would caution them to differentiate between “hate speech” and student opinions they dislike. They also have the right and the responsibility to act as ethical leaders who take informed positions in unsigned editorials.
The editorial board of the nationally award-winning Harbinger Online provides a great example of ethical leadership in response to hateful speech in their most recent editorial, “Burn the Eastonian.” The Eastonian is an underground student newspaper known for its “diabolical” and “abusive” attacks on and lies about students, teachers and administrators, and this editorial makes a compelling case to convince students to end this “most shameful tradition.”
This editorial demonstrates how punishment and censorship are seldom as powerful as more speech can be. According to the piece, this tradition has been going on for decades, despite threats of suspension, being banned from school activities or legal consequences (I assume for the libel, which is a form of unprotected speech).
These deterrents didn’t end the Eastonian last year, but the Harbinger’s passionate editorial might. By naming the problem, humanizing the victims, explaining the consequences — not just to the perpetrators if they get caught, but also to those defamed and to the reputation of the school — and providing examples of prominent students in the community who have pledged to take no part in the Eastonian, the Harbinger editorial board has shown the power of more speech in the face of hate.
Schools across the nation will celebrate Constitution Day on Monday, Sept. 18, this year. I urge you to use this opportunity to bring to the surface difficult conversations about hate speech and the First Amendment.
In addition to the resources I’ve linked to in this blog, you should also check out the JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee’s 2017 Constitution Day lessons.
Read MoreSelf-censorship examination
by Lori Keekley
Title
Self-censorship examination
Description
This lesson examines the self-censorship on the individual level. The lesson starts by providing a prompt in which students examine what they would like to cover, but feel they can’t for some reason. Discussion addresses why this self-censorship exists and examines whether this self-censorship should be abandoned.
Objectives
- Students will examine their own self-censorship content
- Students will discuss why this self-censorship exists
- Students will see whether this topic should be covered — is there a newsworthy peg that can be covered in a journalist responsible way.
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.1.C | Propel conversations by posing and responding to questions that relate the current discussion to broader themes or larger ideas; actively incorporate others into the discussion; and clarify, verify, or challenge ideas and conclusions. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.1.D | Respond thoughtfully to diverse perspectives, summarize points of agreement and disagreement, and, when warranted, qualify or justify their own views and understanding and make new connections in light of the evidence and reasoning presented. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.8 | Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses). |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.1.B | Work with peers to promote civil, democratic discussions and decision-making, set clear goals and deadlines, and establish individual roles as needed. |
Length
100 minutes
Materials / resources
Handout: “Ask These 10 Questions to Make Good Ethical Decisions,” Poynter Institute (teacher may want to print these for easier student reference during both lessons)
Slideshow: Self-Censorship Lesson Slides (see the bottom of the lesson)
Package planner (if you don’t have one, you could use the planner from Tim Harrower’s site.)
Lesson step-by-step
Day 1
Step 1 — Introduction and slide 2 of the slideshow (5 minutes)
Teacher should tell students the information they provide today will be anonymous unless they decide to put their names on their paper. Let them know the information will be used for a class discussion following this activity. This is outlined on slide 2 of the slideshow.
Step 2 — Prompt (5-10 minutes)
Ask students to answer the prompt on slide 3 using their own paper. They may make a list or use full sentences. It’s important they are honest and unafraid of putting the information down. Let students work through the prompt.
Students will be asked to identify the topic they would most like to cover. When this is finished, ask students to turn in their paper. If students could anonymously submit in an electronic form, it would make the second day preparation easier for the teacher.
Step 3 — Continuing the slideshow (15 minutes)
Students will work through a practice scenario starting at slide 5.
Step 4 — Evaluating their topic (10)
Students will evaluate (either alone or with a partner) if they could cover what they identified as the topic they would like to cover. This evaluation begins on slide 9. Students should work through the questions. The teacher may require students to write the answers down or just ask students to work through them.
Step 5 — Debrief (10 minutes)
Ask a few volunteers to share what they did. Students may opt to not to talk about the topic, but talk about the process instead. During the last two minutes of class, ask three people to share what they learned. (These should be three different lessons from the day.)
Day 2
Preparation: Teacher should examine the topics turned in and create a list for students to use in the following lesson. Teacher should have at least three topics for each group to discuss. Also, print out the list of 10 Questions or project them during class.
Step 1 — Review (2 minutes)
Ask a student to talk about the previous lesson. Again, ask students to share what they learned.
Step 2 — Small group discussion/examination (10 minutes per topic, 30 minutes total)
Put students in groups of four by counting off in class. Teacher or a student leader in class should orally provide one of the topics on a sheet. Teacher should not hand out the sheet since handwriting can identify an individual.
This should be completed three times in the group. Remind students they may be given a topic another group member provided. Students should remain respectful in discussion
Step 3 — Application (18 minutes)
The group should select one of the coverage ideas. If you don’t already have a coverage planner, teacher could use the one provided at Tim Harrower’s site. Teacher should assess the package planner sheet.
Extension
Using your student media mission statement and policy statement, evaluate whether these allows an open forum for the free exchange of ideas — and not just those that are popular.
An extension to this assignment would be for students to take one or more of these assignments and show administrators and others why they should be encouraged to report these stories or similar ones instead of having copy prior reviewed.
Self-censorship examination slideshow
Read MoreFirst Amendment school dialogue
by Jeff Kocur
Title:
First Amendment school dialogue
Description
Constitution Day, for journalists, may need to start simply with recognition of the First Amendment and the five freedoms of the First Amendment. This activity will allow your school or individual classes to have a quick discussion of the First Amendment and how your students see their lives impacted by it.
Objectives:
- Students will recognize the five freedoms of the First Amendment
- Students will see the impact of the First Amendment on others
- Students will show the First Amendment’s impact on their own life.
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.9 | Analyze seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century foundational U.S. documents of historical and literary significance (including The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address) for their themes, purposes, and rhetorical features. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.1.C | Propel conversations by posing and responding to questions that probe reasoning and evidence; ensure a hearing for a full range of positions on a topic or issue; clarify, verify, or challenge ideas and conclusions; and promote divergent and creative perspectives. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.8 | Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses). |
Length:
One lunch period (or extend the time over the course of a week during lunches)
Materials/Resources
Five Freedoms poster (make your own or print off the attached version and make it a poster)
Five Freedoms handout
Post-it Notes in five different colors (red, blue, green, yellow and purple)
Sharpie pens
Candy
Activity/lesson Step by Step
Step 1 — Preparation
Print off the Five Freedoms poster and blow it up so that you can hang it on a wall in your lunch or commons area.
Step 2 — Student input
Have your editors sit at a table during lunches with the poster, Post-it Notes, markers and a bowl of candy. Use the Google Presentation slideshow if you have a projector available or print off the five slides and laminate them for student reference.
Invite students to see the five different freedoms of the First Amendment and to choose the freedom they use the most often. Make sure they see the example sheets for the five different freedoms.
Have them choose the color of the Post-it Note that corresponds with their selection and write their name on the Post-it Note.
Post the note on the poster you’ve hung up and offer the students a piece of candy once they’ve completed the task.
Extension
Have an interview booth set up and offer the students the opportunity to share the impact one of the freedoms of the First Amendment has had on them. Here, they could go more in depth and discuss their own story and what the protections of the First Amendment mean to them.
Student media staffs also could put together a story or video that includes the results and some of the quotes from students who provided them.
Read More