First Ammendment, Intellectual Freedom, and Students

Ok, this post is for my good friend Jeff Walters and the rest of the Government teachers at my school.

There are five freedoms of the First Amendment: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Press, Freedom of Petition and Freedom of Speech. The Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment have supported schools in their attempts to restrict students’ speech.

Question: Do you think a reasonable balance has been struck between individual rights and the limitations schools might wish to impose on student rights?

Here is my spin on this with a few interesting cases.

I think in my division there is a reasonable balance, but I think this question goes further than just our own setting. We have a moment of silence (or prayer if you wish) every day, a limited dress code, a “no hat” policy, and many other marginal policies that I do feel infringe on certain rights of expression. Many schools impose dress codes that stifle individual expression to even greater degrees requiring uniforms. Supporters of a dress code might argue that school uniforms might enhance the school learning environment and limit the distractions that might be brought about by dress (such as gang colors, shirts with racial slurs, or inappropriate slogans). Our interpretation of the freedom speech and expression and also the censorship of such freedoms are dependent on our own interpretation of what is good and what is harmful. We constantly test our own views against the view of society as a whole. The ability to segregate the positive and negative values of this freedom rests in the very freedom to practice the right of freedom itself. While at the same time we are responsible for both desirable and undesirable consequences of that right. For our actions involving freedom of expression and the value of that right, we must also be accepting of others sharing and exercising that freedom. My viewpoint follows a nonconsequentialist position based on equal respect for persons and individual accountability and value for both judgment and choice of moral conduct. I think our own views of moral character and intentions should consider the rights of others, but also should examine the good those intentions have for all. If we look at three ethical frameworks (Non-consequentialist, Consequentialist, and Utilitarian) in view of the First Amendment we can see there is opposing values to consider. I will outline a few of these concepts:

"Truth is achieved or pursued by means of open criticism and public debate"- John Stuart Mills

To censor an idea is to deny people the opportunity to consider it and test their own views against it. Censorship fails to show respect for the dignity and value of others as moral agents.

Freedom is important for personal growth. Moral agents value their own ability to make responsible judgments and value their own growth in decision making. (Non-consequentialist)

Those who lack the capacity to make decisions also lack the opportunity to the capacity to make their own decision-Competency requires practice. In order to know what to do, we must know what the consequence will be for our actions. (Consequentialist)

The rights of adults do not apply to children and those not legally competent/practiced, for this reason consequences of liberty for children are not the same as adults.

Freedom for children occurs when an adult believes it serves the best interests of the child or the greater good. (Utilitarian)

A couple of sources and cases to consider.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-oped-project-/history-repeating-dont-ce_b_4434121.html

Zachary Aufderheide, Ohio Student, Suspended For Growing Hair For Charity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/student-punished-for-growing-hair-for-charity_n_2010040.html#ooid=hmOXBiNjqQv8EeEYFA4scsZx0xSxF2zT

Both of these links provide examples where school policies employ censorship of student’s freedom of expression, particularly when it comes to dress codes. In the examples provided, schools have placed value on a specific standard or code of expression, but does the decided value fail to show respect for the dignity and value of students as moral agents? If school officials value their own ability to make judgments and create a standard of dress or physical appearance, should they not value their student’s ability to also make these same judgments? The policy makers (in this case a local school board) clearly have the consequentialist viewpoint that students lack the competency and practice to make judgments regarding dress and how others may perceive certain dress as offensive. They could also be thinking in the utilitarian sense, meaning that the rights of adults do not apply to children who are competent or practiced enough to know the impact and consequences of their liberties. In other words, the freedom of expression in these cases occurs only when it serves the good of the child or the student body as a whole.