Freedom of Speech In Schools

After discussing students’ freedom of speech the last few days, I really started to think about how students are treated at DHS when it comes to freedom of speech. Personally I think Deerfield does a great job at monitoring students when it comes to expressing themselves. Yeah, at some points the administration can be pretty strict, but usually they have the right to be. From symbolic speech, to actually talking, the administration at Deerfield high school cracks down when they need to, but also are very understanding of the student’s first amendment.

In my opinion, speech at school should limited like it is. We are not at home and should not be allowed to express what we want all the time. Like the Des Moines school board argued in the Tinker v. Des Moines case, “Free speech is not an absolute right. The government, at all levels, must balance the rights of individuals to free speech with other values the society holds dear. These other values may include public safety and protecting the rights of other individuals.” I personally agree with this statement, but by no means agree with the school board on this case. Speech should be limited how it is, but not to the extent it went to in this case. Tinker had every right to express what they thought as long as they weren’t disrupting school. That brings us to the question: What must a school prove in order to justify a rule prohibiting its student’s rights to free speech? In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the court ruled, “ In order for the state in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” I really agree with this statement when it comes to political views. People should be able to express them at school in a verbal or symbolic matter as long as they don’t disruptive the classroom setting.

At Deerfield, I think speech is regulated in a right manner. Teenagers are going to swear, it is inevitable. Swearing in class is one thing, but in the hallways, courtyard, or lunchroom, it really is not that big of a deal. I can’t count how many times I have heard kids swear and teachers heard them and either did nothing about it or told them to watch their language. I have even heard kids swear in conversations with teachers and it is no big deal. Swearing at Deerfield doesn’t seem to be such a big concern as to the administration cracking down on kids wearing shirts or other articles of clothing that present a drug reference.  I personally think it is inappropriate to wear something to school with a drug reference on it and that is where I go against what the court said in Tinker v. Des Moines. Just because it might not cause a disturbance, it is still has a drug reference in it. That can bring us to the Morse v. Frederick case. Frederick should have had is banner ripped down because he crossed the boundaries of freedom of speech at school. Drug references at school are an absolute no. This is proved by what the court said in the Frederick case, “school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use.” Do you really need to wear a t-shirt to school with a Bud Light logo on it? Just wear it on the weekends. This does go against ones freedom of speech, but it just crosses the line at a school.