Principal claims school “respects [fettered] student freedom of expression”
An Associated Report (on the CTV.ca website, for example) describes yet another controversy stemming from the outrage-inducing “Vagina Monologues” as three honors students receive in-school suspension for the use of the word “vagina” during a Friday evening event.
The school principal, Richard Leprine, claims the suspension is for disobeying an order to not use the word. The girls did disobey, even going so far as to speak the word in unison when they got to that point in the reading. However, the principal doesn’t actually have a right to suspend their right to free expression, so the girls are under no obligation to follow such an order and a subsequent punishment is an abuse of power.
Most telling to me is Leprine’s quote in the AP article: The school “recognizes and respects student freedom of expression,” Leprine said. “That right, however, is not unfettered.”
As has been previously discussed on this site and others, the only fetters are when such speech indicates a threat to the safety of others within the school. Disagreement about when speech ascends to the level of threats notwithstanding, I think we’re not going to find anyone arguing that the word “vagina” threatens anyone’s safety.
I think this particular play is silly. The girls knew they were going to spark a controversy. As you’ll see in the photo that accompanies the article, they are happy they got the reaction they did and probably went through their suspension pleased to be there, too, because of the reason why.
Nonetheless, good for them for highlighting once again the tendency of public schools to over-reach given authority.
“I think we all have moral obligations to obey just laws. On the other hand, I think that we have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws because non-cooperation with evil is just as much a moral obligation as cooperation with good.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
As has been previously discussed on this site and others, the only fetters are when such speech indicates a threat to the safety of others within the school.
That’s not true. Speech that constitutes a disruption of the educational process may also be prohibited. Go and READ the Tinker v. Des Moines decision. Google will provide you links to several copies.
Court decisiona have confirmed that schools enjoy editoral control over student publications that are produced in connection with curricular programs. The article doesn’t say whether the literary magazine met this criteria, but if it did, the content of the Friday night production would fall under that control.
The article indicates that the girls AGREED to a ban on the word as a condition of performing. If they objected, they should have sued over being excluded from the show - you can’t waive your rights and then sue over it later.
The school sponsored the event, which in no way came fell int to the category of fulfilling minimum rights to an education. There’s a major misconception about free speech, that it somehow obligates the government, with taxpayer money, to provide one a platform from which to speak. The first amendment no more obligates the school to provide a stage with lighting, sound system, and audience seating to someone wishing to read from a controversial play than the second amendment obligates the police department to provide one with a gun.
That said, the school administration is stupid to provide such a venue and expect anything but provocative material. The real problem is scholastic mission creep. If the school stuck to doing their job instead of trying to be a cultural center, then things like this would be in privately owned coffee houses, where they belong, and these girls could say what they pleased. When you hold your hand out asking the government for treats, there’s a price in liberty. The hand that signs the check also holds the whip.
Does the phrase “inalienable” mean anything to you? It doesn’t matter how many contracts I sign, I cannot wave those rights and I can always sue. And where are those court decisions about schools being able to censor student publications? I hope they’re SCotUS cases because anything less is still trumped by freedom of the press.
People waive their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights all the time, and the resulting convictions stick. It’s right there in the Miranda warning - “if you choose to give up this right, anything you say can be used against you.” Freedom of the press only applies when you buy and pay for your own press.
Here’s a scenario - it might not have _really_ happened, but it could:
Day one: Girls quote vagina monologues for women’s lib. They do it respectfully and in good faith. They hand out buttons. Controversy ensues, as that is the point.
Day two: Some boys also want to get in on the act, and using the same ‘rights’, decide to hand out buttons stating their love for their penises. The original girls are upset (as are their supporters) for the mockery. Other girls and the boys think this is hilarious. The community thinks this is very ‘high school’ and Not Funny.
Day three: Some kids who just love to ’stir it up’ can’t resist and have buttons ready that say ‘My penis loves your vagina’ and stand by them under the very same ‘rights’. They’ve done the research and know they’re pretty untouchable and are ready to yell hypocrisy in a heartbeat. The original girls are beyond upset and are now demanding action. The ’stirrers’ are laughing. The rest of the kids think its hilarious. The parents wonder why nothing is being done.
Day four: The local news wants an interview with the school administration. They aren’t interested…. but you know who is? The original girls who feel oh-so-wronged. They started this debacle and they want to show the local newscasters the new t-shirts that are popping up that say ‘Screw the Monologue - Vagina’.
Day five: Parents are flooding the school with phone calls because the administrators looked REALLY bad on the news last night.
Here’s the problem - Teachers/Administrators can’t get a fair shake from the media. It isn’t sensational. Cops have the same problem. Remember - you get 20% of the story in the news and it it is usually the part that makes someone look incompetent or like a delinquent.
As an administrator, what do you do? Let the kids get up on stage and shout Vagina? Do you want to fend off the calls from parents when they complain that you let some kids do it and not others? Common sense has no place in the PUBLIC school of today. You have to appeal to EVERY parent out there. Make a rule and let it stand. Far easier to just say Nope and be done with the whole problem. Face it, the kids are there to get an education… go to college and shout vagina.
“Vagina” is the proper, respectable word to use. As is the word “penis”. There are a great variety of disrespectable terms used to describe the same body parts. What would have been a better word for those girls to say, “box”?
The problem is that the school administrator does not respect the student’s right to expression, or the right to free speech in general. The use of the word caused no distruption to anyone’s education–in fact, it educated them to the lack of freedom or respect for it that their school actually has. The only disruption was the resulting controversy and the suspensions. Those were caused by the principal’s idiotic reaction.
The whole problem would have been avoided if he’d had the courage to admit that he found that particular work unfit for presentation at the school event. It would have been an “in your face” violation of free speech, but then he wouldn’t have had the “disobedience” figleaf to hide his little self-image behind
Interesting legal theories flying on this one.
Also, since when does a principal get the authority to tell students what theyt
The girls are probably not old enough to waive rights (even though I think it unlikely that they did), i.e., they have not reached the age of majority. Waiving Miranda rights or not testifying against oneself in a criminal matter are rights wholly different than the right to say certain words - even at school - in a performance
An administrator is not in a position to deem certain words acceptable in an arbitrary and capricious manner. “Vagina” (and penis, scrotum, anus, etc) is term of art - art meaning a word that one in the representative field would understand and know its meaning. Further, assume an anatomy class - would this term be forbidden? Is the the administrator recommending banning books with such words? - e.g., Grey’s Anatomy? Would a student be allowed to say the word testicle? If not, does Lance Armstrong’s struggle become verboten? I see it now, students performing Lance’s story but some administrator jumps in threatening to suspend the students if they say that Lance had “testicular” cancer. Seems kind of silly to me
The term vagina is not a “curse” word - (I’ll leave the list blank for all to fill in later for what might be considered a “curse” word).
Are we back to covering David with a fig leaf? While the so-called literary work may not rank up there with Shakespeare, it is art and by limiting the what may be read aloud, it is in a sense book banning (IMO). Huck Finn should be on lookout
I am still amazed that a principal would actually give an order to a student asserting that the student could or could not say certain words - the arrogance is simply amazing
Cheers
“The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that happens to occur on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 , distinguished. Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”
“First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.”
“School facilities may be deemed to be public forums [484 U.S. 260, 261] only if school authorities have by policy or by practice opened the facilities for indiscriminate use by the general public, or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations. If the facilities have instead been reserved for other intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, then no public forum has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community.”
U.S. Supreme Court
HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=484&invol=260