Banning Education: Additional Criticism on High School Conservatism

The last week of September annually marks the date for an awareness campaign on free speech, Banned Books Week. Back in my small, high school classrooms, teachers would encourage reading these books. I’ve become very fond of a few including Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World. The irony with these books: both are censored due to their criticisms of censorship. Also, these two texts were required reading in high school. I’m thankful that these great literary works are now embraced instead of exiled, but what is being banned within American high schools?

In my four years at Lincoln-way East, I fell in love with Shakespeare, let my imagination dance with Fitzgerald, and rebelled with Orwell. I found the paperbacks in my chaotic locker almost always penned by dead, white males. First of all, this curriculum avoids too many current issues that are most prevalent in students’ lives. Also, these one-perspective pieces bound together advocate ethnocentrism, calling for me to forget everything the U of I has worked so hard for me to learn in my Global Studies class. America’s high schools must embrace the basis of freedom of expression, diversity of ideas, in order to fully educate our diverse makeup.

The literature curriculum ties with that of the history department. American high school textbooks remember America, not an accurate one. In fact, when James Loewen and coauthors proposed the text Mississippi: Conflict and Change, the Mississippi Textbook Purchasing Board refused the book, stripping their First Amendment right to pursue Truth with a capital T. Mississippi: Conflict and Change is an accurate portrayal of historic Mississippi that brutally acknowledges race relations in the state. The Purchasing Board found racial matters too controversial. In Loewen v. Turnispeed, U.S. District Judge Orma R. Smith found that the grounds for rejection were not justifiable and the authors were denied their First Amendment rights (1).

High school libraries are censoring students too. In Olathe, Kansas, the school board decided to remove the story of a lesbian romance, Annie on my Mind. The book was present in the school library for over a decade, but when gay rights were coming to a forefront and when students needed to confront the issue most, the school board decided to remove the novel (2). In Cedarville, Arkansas, my favorite boy wizard, Harry Potter, was removed from the school district’s libraries (3). Both school districts were found to be acting unconstitutionally in court.

Censorship is diluting our education. After receiving a high school diploma, I don’t know what really happened in history, I’m just breaking my ignorance on the present, and I’m worried about the future. As we found during our earliest days of First Amendment enlightenment, high schools avoid controversy at all costs but with that they avoid educating.





Sources
1. http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm
2. www.librarylaw.com/Liebler.doc
3. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11382

We’re Students; Let’s Protest

I stop on the quad in front of a group of young men holding a sign that says “We can stop the war.” An advocate hands me a flyer and encourages me to attend the Campus Antiwar Network meeting on Tuesday evening. “How can we stop the war?” I ask.
His eyebrow raises, and he hesitates before saying, “Come to the meeting to find out!”
“The meeting sounds great, but how can we stop the war?”
“Just come to the meeting and you’ll find out,” he states before scurrying off to address another Illini.
I turn to the man holding the sign. “How can we stop the war?”
“Well, we have to evoke the same anger and protest that fired the Vietnam protests. Talk to your friends, your classmates. Make this a common issue,” he passionately states.
Less than one hundred feet from a small classroom devoted weekly to First Amendment discussion, a group of young Americans exercises their right in the very way the Framers desired. These young men were peacefully assembling and speaking freely to promote additional free speech and peaceful assembly. Students everywhere use their right to assemble peacefully.

On September 30, 1998, Operation Standard, a conservative group at Clemson University in South Carolina, also exercised their First Amendment rights. They petitioned against the “homosexual agenda” of a spoken word tour set to hit campus the next day. The Spitfire tour featured an Indigo Girl, a former grunge king, and an actor collaborating to address a handful of issues including gay rights. The event was free to students of Clemson University due to a $20 activity fee collected each semester. A spokesperson for the group said that if the University did not comply with the petition's requests to shut down the event and ban "others like it" or refund the $20 per-semester student fees, the group will file a lawsuit against the institution. The “others like it” comment refers to a 1998 decision that ruled the use of student fees to fund activist groups on a campus in violation of the First Amendment.

Ironically, in protest of Spitfire, Operation Standard promoted some of the event’s ideals. Former Nirvana bassist and Spitfire moderator Krist Novoselic stated, “Our agenda as a group is to promote free speech. We're encouraging anybody who wants to send out a press release or speak out or show up in protest or get up during the question-and-answer session to do so. That's great; that's what this about" (1).

Earlier in 1998, high school students in Irmo, South Carolina protested after their school cancelled an Indigo Girls concert due to the musicians’ homosexuality and lyrics. The students were suspended for their protest and then filed suit against their superintendent. Unlike in Tinker, these students disrupted their learning by not attending their second period classes for the protest (2). The court denied the students’ request for a preliminary injunction (3).

If the students had protested after the school day, would they still have been suspended? Would the court have ruled in the same way? Honestly, I think the outcome would be the same. If the school was conservative enough to cancel a free concert based on the musician’s sexuality, they would find a way to silence an activist for a gay musician.

Furthermore, does the use of student fees to fund activist groups on a campus really violate First Amendment rights? I stand on middle ground, torn between both sides. On one hand, the viewpoints of another group can only strengthen one’s own. If an institution provides events for opposing activist groups, an excellent learning experience would be provided. On the other hand, should a student be forced to financially support a cause they oppose under any circumstance? My favorite Framer, Thomas Jefferson, stated, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Overall, student protest is one of the greatest actions, no matter what's the side. Find a cause, and make a difference. We're students; let's protest.

Sources:

(1)http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/502231/19980930/indigo_girls.jhtml

(2)http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/200060/19980512/indigo_girls.jhtml

(3)http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/250018/19980513/indigo_girls.jhtml



Indigo Girls - Shame on You

Censorship Strikes Again: Musicians Continue their Battle to Freely Speak

Dirt crawls between my toes as my bare feet dance on the trash-littered ground known as Grant Park. I am a mere speck in tens of thousands of people facing a stage with five musicians utilizing their First Amendment rights. Grunge idols Jeff Amnet, Mike McCready, Matt Cameron, and Stone Gossard stand behind the voice of Eddie Vedder singing seditious libel. "George Bush, leave this world alone. George Bush, find yourself another home." Lollapalooza headliners Pearl Jam end the three-day, justice loving music festival with words of activism prancing over familiar melodies. Beyond Vedder’s critiques of America’s president, the band starts another tune with lyrics stating “BP Amoco, Don’t Go” in protest of the company’s recent decision to continue dumping waste into glistening Lake Michigan, which can be seen from the festival grounds. It is August 5, 2007, and freedom rings (1).

I roll sluggishly out of my cozy bed mid-afternoon on August 6 to find news articles swarming my white-framed computer screen. The bell of freedom is silenced. AT&T, Lollapalooza sponsors and broadcasters, censored Vedder’s controversial lyrics in the company’s online coverage. The public screams outrage, and AT&T credits the conveniently placed censorship as “an unfortunate mistake” and an “isolated incident.” Fans point out this incident isn’t so isolated. Less than two months earlier, AT&T censored controversial comments from The Flaming Lips and John Butler Trio at the Bonnaroo Festival in Manchester, Tennessee (2).

And now, two months after Vedder sang his heartfelt words, censorship strikes again. Another outspoken, peace-loving rocker, Bono, was awarded the Liberty Medal for 2007 in Philadelphia on September 27. In his acceptance speech, Bono stated, "You do not have to become a monster to defeat a monster." The official website for the Liberty Medal, www.libertymedal.org, edited Bono’s torture-critical words in their official video coverage of the event (3).

All of the speakers in the addressed cases of censorship cannot be protected under the First Amendment. Private institutions, not the government, censored the content. Whether or not the issues can arrive in American courts, these statements bleed the same ink as the First Amendment. The Framer’s intended the First Amendment to protect seditious libel. The Framer’s intended the First Amendment to protect democracy. Censorship in any form does not accomplish these goals.

Why do we, the people of the United States, support money-orientated corporations that demean our sacred Constitution? Why does a private corporation have the right to shatter the principals of the First Amendment? Pearl Jam Guitarist Mike McCready agrees, "I grew up in a democratic system of government. This is what was taught all through kindergarten through college. Freedom of thought and expression were hallmarks of my early education. These concepts and theories integrated my belief in an American system of democracy. Consequently, I became a musician because of these inalienable rights. Make no mistake I am an artist and a capitalist because of this system that I believe in and our country. I don't however believe that a capitalist corporation such as AT&T has the right to subvert the First Amendment of the constitution to which we all are accountable. This happened on the night we played Lollapalooza. I was dismayed to hear that the act of censoring free speech was used to edit our song 'Daughter' for a web cast. Surely the American listening public can discern for themselves what they deem acceptable to hear. This is a hallmark of our American way! The freedom to listen to what you want or don't want to. The American public was duped as was I in believing that I can speak freely without censorship" (2).

Next time you think you’re “freely” speaking on your AT&T serviced cell phone, think again.

Sources:
(1) http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070809-pearl-jam-censored-by-att-calls-for-a-neutral-net.html
(2) http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1566946/20070813/pearl_jam.jhtml
(3) http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10211





AT&T's "Coverage"

Bullying the First Amendment: School Administrators Strip Students of Constitutional Rights

Students returning to school this fall in Arlington, Texas were given an extensive contract to sign. With their John Hancock, Arlington High students agreed they would not instant-message, send offensive digital pictures, download video footage, or hack into another student’s email account whether at school or in the privacy of their home. Students from coast to coast are forced into signing comparable agreements. Similar enforcement from the state looks likely in the near future. All across the nation, legislation has been proposed that would allow administrators to suspend or expel a student if they were found to have been bullying another online. Earlier this year, South Carolina passed a law allowing schools to punish “cyber bullies”. Arkansas, Oregon, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have similar laws in the works (1).

According to Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, cyberbullying is “the use of any electronic communication device to harass, intimidate, or bully.” In other words, cyberbullying includes any and all offensive speech made through traceable, electronic devices (2).

Two high school boys in New York claimed the name “cyber bullies” when they created a website dedicated to the publication of girls’ “sexual secrets”. Prosecutors never charged the boys because of free speech concerns (3).

In Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, a student mass-emailed an unflattering “top ten” about the school’s athletic director. When news of the email hit school officials, the author was suspended. While applying Tinker, a federal district court determined that the offensive speech did not create a substantial disruption (4).

In 2000, a high school student in Washington state created a website containing mock obituaries of two of his friends. School administration suspended the website creator, Nick Emmett, for harassment, intimidation, disruption of the educational environment, along with other violations. Emmett sued in defense of his First Amendment rights. The judge suggested that the school authorities did not have the power to regulate at all: “Although the intended audience was undoubtedly connected to Kentlake High School, the speech was entirely outside of the school’s supervision or control” (5).

As seen in these cases, cyberbullying is completely legal without additional legislation. But is the proposed legislation that limits students’ electronic speech constitutional? In my opinion, said legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Limiting any form of offensive speech on the Internet was deemed unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of protection. The First Amendment clearly protects offensive speech, seeing as inoffensive speech goes unquestioned. Furthermore, students are protected from Internet bullies without infringing on First Amendment rights. The First Amendment does not protect actual threats.

The Supreme Court has yet to determine a student Internet case leaving the future unclear. If the proposed legislation is passed, students will be stripped of their constitutional rights.


Sources:
(1) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070913cyberbullying,1,7964745.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
(2) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18692
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253259,00.html
(4) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/student.internet.speech.pdf
(5) http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-emmett.htm









Limiting cyberbullying is not constitutional, but it shouldn't have to be limited.