As we will see again and again, things are not always exactly clear-cut.
See, the kid argued that he was not on school property, since everyone had gathered in the street outside. The principal shot back that the event was sponsored by the school, even though it took place on the sidewalk, so she had the right to get rid of the sign and punish him. The kid argued that he had the right to express his opinion about cannabis (yes, he was for it). Ms. Morse countered that his message undermined the school’s educational mission and flew in the face of its antidrug stance. (True enough.) That, in her view, meant that she could keep Frederick from making his statement.
You noticed that I said “2002,” right? But this case isn’t over yet. When Frederick sued, a local court agreed with the school. Then a federal appeals court agreed with Frederick, saying that the school could not “punish and censor nondisruptive speech.”
There’s more. Now the Supremes have agreed to take the case. (By the way, the lawyer representing the school is Ken Starr, whom some of you may remember—I know, I know, just barely—from the Monica Lewinsky affair.)
This case is not just a matter of pride, by the way. If the school loses in the end, damages will have to be paid to Frederick.
What will happen? I don’t know, although I’d guess that the current lineup of judges will side with the school. Whatever happens, you can be sure that I’ll be talking about it on The Factor.
As for Frederick, he has said that he put up the banner so that it would be seen on TV. He sure got his wish. But judging by his slogan, Fred is a pinhead. Jesus and pot have nothing in common. This is just a case of a wiseguy making trouble.
But the Supreme Court is hearing it! That means, taking it seriously!
* * *
!NEWS FLASH!
Yes, this really is a flash. Just as this book was sent off to the printer this past summer, the Supremes suddenly came down from the heights and spoke their several minds.
You’re going to love this, especially after everything we’ve talked about. Better yet, you’re going to understand it, precisely because of everything we have talked about. It’s a great, right-here-and-now example of how complicated—and fascinating—the continuing story of rights in America can be.
If we could just cut to the chase, the box score would be Principal Morse 5, Joseph Frederick 4 (or 5 1/2 to 3 1/2, as you will see). Bottom line: Joseph’s “prank” was not free speech protected by the First Amendment, according to the majority of the Supremes, and Ms. Morse does not have to pay damages to the kid because, to use the legal language, as a government official she is entitled to “qualified immunity” from liability.
So has everything about this case been cleared up now? Is everyone all across the land dancing happily through the streets, hand in hand, blowing bubbles to the same tune on our iPods?
You know better. Or you’ve been dozing off while reading this book.
As it turns out, this case took some crazy twists and turns, even after all we’ve already discussed and thought about. Get this: The ACLU—fervent advocates of perfectly free speech—was actually joined in their concern over this case by conservative religious groups like the American Center for Law and Justice (that would be a Pat Robertson entity).
What? Did Jesus really do bong hits back in the old days, pastor?
No. But think a little about this. The left believes that you have the right to state in school (or to argue in the school newspaper) that marijuana is a good thing. The right does not believe that (typically). But some conservatives were afraid that if Joseph Frederick wasn’t permitted to preach in favor of getting stoned, a fundamentalist Christian kid couldn’t speak out against abortion, premarital sex, evolutionary thought, or gay marriage, either.
So some people on the right supported Joseph even though they deplored what he did?
You got it. You may not yet have learned the old expression “Politics makes strange bedfellows,” but you just saw an example of what that expression refers to.
How can you be allowed to say “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” and also “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” in the same breath?
Welcome, once again, to the puzzle of rights in this country.
So, as you’ve guessed, neither side was completely happy with the court’s decision. And the judges weren’t happy, either. I’m not going into all of the details, which could (hint) make quite a term paper, but here’s a quick rundown.
On the anti-Joseph team, Supreme Court top judge John G. Roberts Jr. argued that the principal had the right to suspend the kid because “failing to act would send a powerful message to the students” that, in effect, the school wasn’t really serious about fighting drug use. (He did note that the message on the banner was “cryptic” and “gibberish,” though.) Three more judges agreed with his decision, without comment, but the fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, was moved to add that “in light of the history of public education,” students (and that means you) have no right of freedom of speech in school under the First Amendment. None. Nada.
Then there was Justice Stephen G. Breyer. He didn’t think that the principal should have to pay damages (1/2 vote for the principal), but he argued that the Supreme Court should have stayed away from the discussion of the First Amendment (1/2 vote for young Frederick). Might confuse things, he opined. Apparently, Judge Breyer wanted the controversy to be seen as an “authority” issue, not a “free speech” issue. It is easier to define what a school principal can legally do than to define what an American kid can legally say.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the opinion for the four (or 3 1/2) dissenting judges, was pretty funny. He argued that the majority was just making up a special free speech exception for any mention of drugs. With tongue firmly in cheek, he asked whether or not the decision would have been different if the offending banner had read, “Wine Sips 4 Jesus.” That, he wrote, could be read as both pro-wine and pro-Christianity. (If you haven’t heard about the Christian rite of communion, look it up.) But Stevens certainly understood the subversive message Joseph put out there; he just didn’t think it was that big a deal.
* * *
So where are we?
Hard to say. All I can tell you with certainty is this: There will be more court cases, leading to more decisions that will perhaps cause even more controversy (or not)…There will be attempts in Congress to define the issues of the decision with new legislation…And the world, including me, will opine!
Most important, you—along with your friends and parents and teachers—will have to figure out how this decision affects your daily life. So, in case you ever thought Washington, D.C., was far away, think again. The Supremes are in your face, for better or worse. Even when you’re trying to decide what to say or write in school, they’re looking over your shoulder. You have a lot to think about…
Oh, one other thing…young Joseph Frederick, the high school student in this case, is now twenty-three years old. That says a lot. Your rights take time to define. Yes, I am a poet.
* * *
AWESOME multiple-choice quiz no. 3
1. The Supremes are…
a. Last year’s winning team in the NCAA final.
b. A girl band based in Seattle.
c. The nine judges on the Supreme Court.
d. The most popular drugs in downtown Chicago
2. “Due process” is…
a. Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
b. Too difficult for most people to understand.
c. The legal basis for allowing kids to be paddled.
d. What happens when the morning sun hits wet grass.
3. A 5–4 vote on the Supreme Court means that…
a. There has to be a recount.
b. A decision may well be reversed when new judges replace current ones.
c. Overtime rules go into effect.
d. Republican judges outnumber Democratic ones.
4. The ACLU is…
a. The official represen
tative of high school softball.
b. The final answer revealed by The Da Vinci Code.
c. A group that advocates rights but sometimes drives me nuts with their extremism.
d. A club that gives an annual dinner to honor the Founding Fathers.
What you are allowed to wear to school is determined by…
a. Your political beliefs.
b. The local school authorities.
c. Your parents.
d. Us magazine.
And, now, the correct answers:
1. c; 2. a; 3. b; 4. c; 5. b.
* * *
6
ALL IN THE FAMILY
Surprise! In most polls, American parents name their teenager’s “attitude” as the one thing that is most likely to drive them nuts.
Well, you knew that. If you’re one of the culprits, your parents have undoubtedly “taken pains” to explain this concept to you.
And, just in case they’re looking over your shoulder, I want to PROMISE them that I’m not writing anything in this chapter that could make you less pleasant to live with.
Is that even possible?
Just kidding.
Still, it has to be said: As a child who is legally under the care of adults, you have certain rights at home. Most of them are in the realm of common sense. Your rights entitle you to food, lodging, health care, and freedom from abuse. My guess is that you probably take all of this for granted. The government doesn’t have to force your parents to respect these rights. Your parents do so because they want you to have a good life, and because they love you.
There are exceptions out there, I know. But that’s when a kid needs more than a book; that’s when the law needs to get involved. If you are the victim of abuse or neglect, it is your right to seek protection. See the guidance counselor at your school. Immediately!
Generally, though, most American kids are well cared for. Of course, as you get older, even if you’re still legally underage, it’s natural to start spreading your wings. You begin staking out “positions”!
Try these on:
—“It’s my life! I can choose the friends I want! Hogtooth is really cool!”
—“I’m not a baby! NO ONE wears jeans at the waist like those nerds in your old yearbook. Hello!”
—“Mom! I know about sex, okay? Going to that new movie isn’t going to turn me into a slut!”
And so forth.
If you keep up the attitude, you are likely to lose the argument, because the courts have pretty much agreed that your parents or legal guardians have the right to make these kinds of decisions for you. They have a right to supervise your conduct and instill in you their vision of right and wrong. Remember, even the movie theaters can keep you out of R-rated flicks until you’re seventeen.
When you reach age eighteen, you can make all your own decisions about how you behave (that is, if you live outside your parents’ home). But until then, your parents rule. Literally!
Sorry.
Let me confess something right here. (And you’re not really going to be surprised!)
When I was your age, I was too stupid to think about my rights. I mean, for me, it was simple. When I did what my parents or the school or the church did not want me to do, I ran the risk of being punished. (And, as I mentioned in my previous book for kids your age, that could mean that my very large father might use me as a door knocker with his very large fist.)
At times, I was out of control. I didn’t consider what my rights were or weren’t. Most of the time, I just did what I wanted to do and tried not to become the target of an adult’s wrath.
Again, I was stupid. My parents, more than many, accepted their obligations to feed, clothe, and try to educate me and my younger sister. They stood up for me when someone outside the house was unfair to me. They made me accept the blame when I did something unfair to someone else.
Me at your age.
In other words, they did a good job, most of the time. And I didn’t make things easy for them. I just took their good job for granted. It took me a long, long time—much too long—to realize how hard they worked and how much I owed them. You see, I just didn’t think about the whole balance (that word again) between rights and responsibilities. I was an idiot!
There’s no other word for it. In my defense, my friends were pinheads as well. Maybe life was simpler then. You’ve heard the old story: The wife and mother stayed at home, cooking and cleaning; the father went out into the world five days a week to earn money; the children were supposed to keep out of trouble—and pick up their rooms!
Believe me, I know that your world is much more complicated than that. Maybe that’s why people your age are so much smarter about rights and responsibilities. Maybe that’s why you ask so many good questions and have the courage to challenge things that seem wrong to you.
But while you think about your own rights, I urge you to think about your parents’ rights, too, and about how the world sometimes tries to weaken them.
PARENTS UNDER ATTACK?
Here’s a situation that I reported on and summed up in my last book for adults, Culture Warrior. I’ll be brief. Try to read it as if you were a parent, and think about what your rights would be in that case.
A few years ago, ridiculous school officials in Palmdale, California, gave a test to kids in the second through fifth grades. You know, the old standardized testing thing. Only this time, the kids were asked to tell how they felt about activities such as “thinking about touching other people’s private parts.”
I’m not making this up. Okay, imaginary parent, that was only one example of the type of questions these kids were asked. The others are, uh, in the same ballpark.
So what do you think? Did the school have a right to ask such questions? I’ll give you a moment, then I’ll tell you what the courts decided. But here’s your assignment: You decide first what your reaction would be if your child was in those grades in Palmdale and was forced to take that “test.”
Well, here’s what happened, in summary. Some parents asked school officials to stop giving the test. The “educators” basically ignored them. The parents sued. Eventually, to cut to the chase, a federal appeals court found in favor of the school system.
That’s right, imaginary parent. The judges decided that you don’t have the right to prevent your young child from experiencing what the school decides is good for his or her education—even if you are outraged, horrified, or shocked by the subject matter. Explicit sex questions for seven-year-olds? Come on!
Okay, let’s jump back to your house today. If you’re in conflict with a parent over something the school is teaching you (or not teaching you), I don’t know whether you’re right or not. If you think your parent is keeping you from an activity that your friends are allowed to enjoy, then ditto…I still don’t know who’s wrong or right.
But I think I do know something important: Because they do their job, because the law backs them up (sometimes), your parents have rights that will often END THE DISCUSSION.
Aha! You see, I bet you did not agree with the Palmdale school officials…or with the court that backed them up. (If I’m wrong about that, I’d sure like you to e-mail me with your point of view and argument. I’ll listen.)
But with the shoe on the other foot, maybe you can understand why your parents believe that their decisions about your school and your activities are part of their rights as parents. But that’s another book. One you’ll read about fifteen years from now.
At this point, your humble author needs a break. So let’s go to the movies!
SCENE FROM MOVIE ABOUT IDIOT KID
Idiot Kid: I can come home when I want to! All the other kids can stay out till midnight!
Father: But you’re not all the other kids. You’re my son.
Idiot Kid: They think I’m a nerd!
Father: They are wrong.
Idiot Kid: I’m staying out! What are you going to do about it?
Father: (after a pause) That is
not a smart question.
No, it is not! And that’s not a smart kid, because he isn’t dealing with reality. (You know, that thing they do TV shows about?)
The reality is that your parents have rights. Which leads to another movie.
SCENE FROM MOVIE ABOUT SMART KID
Smart Kid: Dad?
Father: What’s up, son?
Smart Kid: I know you worry when I’m out after eleven at night.
Father: You bet I do.
Smart Kid: You worry because I might do something stupid, or because I might get hurt, right?
Father: You got it.
Smart Kid: Okay, that’s your right. I understand that.
Father: (chokes on sandwich)
Smart Kid: But what if we worked something out?
Father: (regaining control) I’m…listening.
Smart Kid: See, the final game of the World Series, probably, because of the time difference in the West, won’t be over until midnight.
Father: Is something wrong with our TV?
Smart Kid: No, but the rest of the team will be watching at Jeff’s house…Wait; wait, please. And Jeff’s father said he would stay up with us and drive home everybody who needs a ride.
Okay, I think this movie will have a happy ending.
And I think you see why. There’s a happy ending for the kid’s request. It’s logical and well thought out—and respectful of his father’s rights!
Kids Are Americans Too Page 5
