Thought crimes

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” But that decision has not described the status quo for quite some time.\nThat decision came from the famous Supreme Court decision for Tinker v. Des Moines which upheld the right of students to engage in expressive activity as long as it did not substantially disrupt school. The case of Morse v. Frederick in June has become the latest case to further define the constitutional rights of students in a restrictive and narrow manner. Most of you probably know of the Morse v. Frederick case because of the famous “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” poster that got a high school student before the Supreme Court.\nThe Court denied the student’s First Amendment claim and ruled that speech advocating drug use and other illegal activities was not protected in a school environment, despite the fact that the poster was neither on school grounds nor during class. One could probably argue that such a ruling has some merits, but another ruling made based on the precedent of the Morse v. Frederick decision has gone way too far. \nIn the case of Ponce v. Socorro Independent School District, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made a ruling that effectively allows school administrators to apply a zero-tolerance policy to any speech about violence against students. This might seem good enough to some but consider the facts of the case. \nThe case concerns a high school sophomore named Enrique Ponce who kept a diary in which he described several acts of violence and intolerance, including the creation of a pseudo-Nazi group and committing acts of violence against homosexual and other minority students. The most chilling diary entries include descriptions of Columbine-type shootings taking place at several schools.\nAt this point it probably seems as though the student’s First Amendment rights were the least of our problems, and although his intolerance and violent attitude are both unpardonable, the truth remains that his First Amendment rights are – or at least were – ours as well. \nHis diary was only shown to a friend and was not widely disseminated at school, which seems to suggest that online blogs might be fair game for school administrators. Consider any rants you might have made on a Xanga, Livejournal or Facebook over the years, even harmless, and think about whether it would be fair to suspend you from school for them.\nThe ruling certainly suggests that such threats of violence do not even need to be credible. The diary, which was described by the student and his mother as “fictional,” was turned over the El Paso Police Department who, after reviewing the case, declined to press charges. \nWhat students like Ponce need is not suspension and punishment. Instead, they need psychological assessment and help. Hammering away at student rights will only serve to drive troubled teens further underground, while students who have committed no crime continue to get punished.