Supreme Court weighs in on zero tolerance
The Supreme Court recently heard Morse v. Frederick, which captured the attention of the general public because of the appeal of how most people know it: the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. In essence, the Court’s ruling has strengthened the powers of discipline on the part of school administrators by holding that the First Amendment guarantees of free speech do not hold for public school students when that speech promotes illegal drug use.
One might think that this column would be disappointed, but the opinions of the 5-4 majority in this case are based on principles we actually support. Discipline of students that have in some way threatened the safety of others or disrupted the educational process is an important part of teaching those children to be positive contributors to our greater society. Rather, our objection is to the transfer of intelligent and appropriate discipline to a mindless application of zero tolerance policies that cast the disciplinary net too wide and know no difference between the harmless play of children and the malevolence of true juvenile delinquents. Thus do little green army men and real, loaded guns brought to school as a threat or tool for harm become equally offensive, administrators lose all credibility, and children lose instead of learn.
The Supreme Court did not explicitly address zero tolerence, but in a majority concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “Students will test the limits of acceptable behavior in myriad ways better known to schoolteachers than to judges; school officials need a degree of flexible authority to respond to disciplinary challenges; and the law has always considered the relationship between teachers and students special.” Flexible authority is the polar opposite of zero tolerance. We can only hope that public school administrators will listen to Justice Breyer and the Court and come to their senses on this foolish trend.
If you have time, you should really read the entire decision. Justice Breyer’s quote is on page 39. Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, beginning on page 19, is also an excellent discussion of school discipline.
Well put. Activists too often ignore the fine print of “defeats” and miss key points that could be used to leverage victories.
If you have time, you should read what legal scholars are saying about it. It’s policy making judicial activism, and does damage to free speech. Not to mention the glaring stupidity of thinking it actually advocated drug use.
Of course it is, but it can be leveraged.
The decision does really say much of anything - the Justices’ opinions, for the most part, are not broad reaching (e.g., Miranda) rather they are very specific to the case at hand and one would be hard pressed to apply this case to other facts patterns
Cheers