Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
This case is about a school principal’s ability to maintain a school environment free from messages that glorify drug use. It is also a case about a student’s freedom from solicitations to break the law.
Both of these rights were violated when Joseph Frederick unfurled a 14 foot banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” across the street from his high school. Frederick’s purpose was to get on television, but his viewing audience was the faculty, staff and students waiting to see the Winter Olympic torch pass by their campus. The principal saw the sign, took it down, and suspended the defiant high school senior.
Frederick appealed his suspension, first through the school district, then in federal court. Now he awaits the Supreme Court’s answer to his question: Did the principal violate his freedom of speech?
Pepperdine School of Law Dean Kenneth Starr says the answer should be “No.” As counsel for the principal, he argued that common sense and Supreme Court case law support a school administrator’s ability to provide a drug-free school environment. The exercise of this right protects the school environment and protects students from being exposed to messages that encourage illegal behavior.
Celebrating drug use among teenagers is contrary to a school’s mission. The principal was correct to perceive the danger inherent in Frederick’s message, authorized to take it down, and justified in suspending him.
The nonsensical nature of Frederick’s sign is not the issue. The key to understanding this case lies in the reasonable interpretation that the banner’s message conveys an easy indifference to drug use.
That indifference would not be so easily dismissed if Frederick’s banner had read “Drive-bys for Jesus” or “Sex Slaves for Jesus.” No one would mistake these messages as merely a sophomoric stunt to get on television. There would be outrage and rightly so.
Referencing a form of gang activity that regularly takes the lives of innocent bystanders (many of them children) is a reckless way to communicate. So too is making light of the fact that thousands of women and children are sold into sexual slavery every year to fulfill the desires and line the pockets of the well-to-do. But perhaps that is the point. Maybe if we make fun of enough people we can cheapen their humanity to a level where we don’t have to think about them seriously. Everything about them becomes a joke, even their drug use.
Drug glorification is rampant in American culture. From music videos idolizing narcotics dealers to comedians getting a cheap laugh labeling someone a crack whore, the everyday consequences of drug use can be seen in all their raw reality on Los Angeles’ Skid Row. All the royalties 50 Cent collects from his albums would not be enough to detoxify the heroin-riddled community that calls the crime-ridden sidewalks its home.
A school principal should be able to say no to messages that glorify drug use. As the representative of a student’s parent, the principal has the right to protect the best interests of her students, especially those students who choose not to make a mockery of the First Amendment.
The principal’s right exists whenever the student is in the care of the school, whether in the classroom, on a field trip or at a school-sponsored event. The integrity of the school environment is put at risk when the person responsible for a student’s mental, physical, and emotional development is told she can't control whether another student promotes an activity that, if joined, would result in jail time. The Supreme Court should apply reason to the facts and uphold a school’s right to protect students.
Submitted 03-29-2007
MALIBU, CA
