Student Rights Forum

Past Posts, Volume 2
 
 
 

WARNING!! This forum promotes freedom of speech.

Some of the posts may contain harsh language and profanity.

All young children

and anyone else who might be easily offended

must STOP now and leave this site by clicking HERE!

Thank you.
 

The Student Rights Forum is receiving many posts each week, especially during the school year. We must occasionally remove very old posts to speed downloading and posting times.

Scroll down to read many interesting posts which have been saved below on this page.
 
 

Also, for additional past posts, please see 

Past Posts, Volume 1

Past Posts, Volume 3

And, please visit the page of interesting posts on the Santa Barbara California school dress code protest.
 
 

Re Bannned Books

From: zombie

Date: 05 Jun 1998

A great site on books that have been banned:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/spok/banned-books.html
 
 
 
 

From: Rotifer

Date: 06 Jun 1998

Hahahahahah! this is amazing!! Twelfth Night was banned, "Twelfth Night includes a number of romantic entanglements

including a young woman who disguises herself as a boy."

oh NO! have they even read it?
 
 

From: zombie

Date: 06 Jun 1998

The The American Library Association list of the most challenged and banned books.

http://www.ala.org/bbooks/challeng.html
 
 

Teaching Creationism in School

From: Joe Neanderthal

Date: 25 May 1998
 
 

How about the campaign to teach creationism as an alternative to science in school?

Check this out:
 
 

First, a New York Times article:

http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/nyt/teach-ev.htm
 
 

Next, a good overview of the issue:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_hist.htm
 
 

Next, a few pages from the site of a group promoting the teaching of Creationism in school:

http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

http://www.icr.org/cat-bc.htm

http://www.icr.org/goodsci/faq-gs.htm

Ok, I think it's a free country and people should be able to believe whatever they want. And If they want to have creationism in their religious schools, they should be able to do it. BUT KEEP THIS OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE IT IS RELIGION AND NOT SCIENCE. Thank you.
 
 

Re: Teaching Creationism in School

From: theMule

Date: 28 May 1998

Are you crazy? You can't teach creationism in schools. Th entire purpose of schools is to teach scientific fact. If you want to learn about creationism, go to church.
 
 

Re: Teaching Creationism in School
 
 

From: monkeyman

Date: 29 May 1998

It seems joe is only saying that creationism should not be taught in public schools but religious freedom should stop the government from deciding what is taught in religious schools. I am not very religeous and I don't personally believe in creationism and I dont think it should be in public school. But I think the US Constitution should stop some government agent from telling a church they can't teach creationism in a church school. In the other forum they said you are from Canada. In Canada is this a problem? Do some people there want creationism in public schools? Does Canada allow the government to tell a religious school they must teach evolution and not creationism? It would be interesting to know the difference between our countries.

monkeyman, and proud of it!
 
 

From: theMule

Date: 29 May 1998

Actually, I haven't heard about this being an issue in Canada, but I thought it was an interesting issue and decided to throw in my two cents about it. To clarify a point, I'm not sure how it is in the US, but in Canada, Catholic schools are publicly funded while other religous schools are not. I attend a public school, but as far as I know, creationism is not being taught in any schools, publicly funded or otherwise, in Canada.
 
 

Re: Teaching Creationism in School

From: Harry Hominid

Date: 29 May 1998

I believe in spontaneous human combustion but not spontaneous human creation.
 
 
 
 

Re: Teaching Creationism in School

From: Gui Montag

Date: 30 May 1998

What the hell is wrong with you morons! Government should keep it's filthy noses out of our religious buisness! Religion should be pursued independently, not taught like algebra.
 
 

Re: Teaching Creationism in School

From: gail

Date: 09 Jul 1998

I beg your pardon, but if you would read some of the information about creationism in the supplied websites, you'd know that one can scientifically study creation. A further look would show you that evolution is religion (not science) studied scientifically.

Neither can be proven because no one can make a conclusive scientific test of something created thousands of years ago. It is interesting, though, that scientific studies of recent catastrophies (i.e. Mt. St. Helens eruption) have lead scientists to believe that massive sedimentary layers which have so quickly turned to rock, don't need millions of years to form. This leads one to question beliefs about earth's age.
 
 

Re: Teaching Creationism in School
 
 

From: Cro-Magnon Dan

Date: 09 Jul 1998

Are you saying that creationism, such as the story in the Book of Genesis, should be taught in public schools because it can be supported by the "science" advocated by creationists??

If that is what you are saying, then I doubt you understand either science or the U.S. Constitution.

Of course you are free to believe whatever you want. Hey, my tribe is busy developing a complex cosmological system based on the fact that the universe and everything in it was created from the cataclysmic menstrual flow of a celestial goddess who resembles the supermodel Frederique. What is our scientific proof, you may ask? Exactly this. It explains why life is so sweet.

But I suppose you probably don’t want our beliefs taught in public schools. Frankly, we feel the same way about yours.
 
 

Re: Teaching Creationism in School

From: Bill Mac

Date: 23 Jul 1998

Just to let you know that what is being taught in public schools today is a form of humanism. Humanism is a religion by the true meaning. Not that they aare teaching there is a supreme being oout there some where, but they do teach in various forms an ways that we are gods in ourselves. If we do not have faith in the only true God our faith is in something else.
 
 
 

Religion in Public Schools
 
 

From: zardaz
Date: 06 Sep 1998

Time: 01:50:43

Comments
 

Here is a good summary of the law concerning religious activities in public schools. It explains which activities are constitutional and which are not.
 

This summary is endorsed by many religious groups as an acurate statement of the law. Check it out.
 

http://www.aclu.org/issues/religion/relig7.html
 
 
 

School bans "controversial" web sites
 
 

From: vortex

Date: 02 Aug 1998  

Comments
 

Many schools are limiting the rights of students to have access to the internet. Some of these rules are so strict they are

unreasonable, particularly for high school and college students.
 
 

Below is a New York Times article about this issue. It describes how some high schools are using vague policies which

prevent students from viewing any "controversial" or "inappropriate" (whatever that means) web sites. One high school is so

strict it even stops a student from looking at sites about nonconventional religion.
 
 
 
 

New York Times, June 3, 1998
 
 

Student's Search for Religion Leads

To Curb on 'Controversial' Sites
 
 

By PAMELA MENDELS
 
 

Burklin A. Nielsen is a freckled 15-year-old who likes sailing, skating, acting in plays and

listening to the alternative rock group Smashing Pumpkins.
 
 

She is also interested in non-mainstream religions, in particular Wicca, a kind of contemporary

nature-worship group whose prime deity is a goddess.
 
 

This does not trouble her parents, who believe Burklin, a Lutheran raised in a devout home, is going

through a healthy period of teen-age intellectual exploration.
 
 

But when Burklin used school computers to look at Web sites about Wicca and other

unconventional religious practices, school officials apparently became alarmed. Partly in response to

this incident, officials for the tiny Winter, Wis., school district recently passed a lengthy Internet use

policy that, among other things, prohibits students from using school computers to view

"controversial materials" online.
 
 

Burklin, her family and their lawyer say the policy is so vague that, if put into effect, it would violate

her free speech, and, perhaps, religious rights. "It's not clear whether Burklin is going to get kicked

off if she signs onto the Internet and looks up Buddhism during study hall," said Lucy A. Dalglish, a

lawyer who works for the Minneapolis law firm of Dorsey & Whitney, which is representing the

family pro-bono.
 
 

But school officials say they have a duty to protect young people from inappropriate material on the

Internet, such as neo-Nazi or bomb-making Web sites. "I'm concerned about someone's so-called

rights, but I'm also concerned that some material could be devastating to students," said Wenceslaus

W. Borrie, a school board member who voted with the majority on May 18 in favor of the new

policy.
 
 

The Winter School District board is not alone in adopting an Internet use policy to control student

access to material online. About 80 percent of public schools that make the Internet available to

students have some sort of "acceptable use" policy in place, according to Quality Education Data, a

market research company that studies trends in education. Less than half of all schools -- about 39

percent -- use "filtering" software to block access to potentially objectionable sites.
 
 

The policies vary widely, from simple statements that could "fit on the back of a driver's license" to

five-page documents, according to Carol M. Simpson, editorial director for Linworth Publishing

Inc., which publishes magazines for school librarians and school technology personnel. Often, she

said, the policies require that students use the Internet exclusively for "curricular-related" reasons. In

some cases, schools forbid access to "inappropriate materials," but don't define that phrase, she

said.
 
 

Burklin, who lives in the village of Ojibwa, is an honor student at Winter High School, which

includes about 425 pupils in an area of northwestern Wisconsin known mainly for logging and

tourism. The school, situated in the town of Winter, received Internet access last fall and set up a

computer lab within the library for student use as well as for community use in a special after-school

program.
 
 

It was in this community program last December that Burklin was surfing the Web looking for

Wicca sites. She had become curious about Wicca and other religions after taking a summer college

course in which differences between major religions, such as Christianity, Taoism and Islam, were

discussed. She also had two friends who were involved with Wicca, a religion developed in Britain

in the 1950s.
 
 

With a kind of eco-feminist bent, Wicca today has about 50,000 to 100,000 adherents in the

United States, according to J. Gordon Melton, director of the Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Institute

for the Study of American Religion. Sometimes, he said, people mistakenly confuse Wiccans with

devil worshippers, although he stressed, "They have no more attraction to Satan than a Buddhist

would."
 
 

As for Burklin, she has a simple answer when asked why she wanted to view the Wiccan sites and

Web pages devoted to similar topics, such as witchcraft, magic and goddesses. "I just like to learn

things," she explained.
 
 

Her parents -- who describe Burklin as the kind of teen-ager who enjoys reading the encyclopedia

-- encouraged her research. "I always feel like you need to know what your 'competition' is doing,"

said her mother, Karen S. Nielsen, who manages the local post office and is choir director at

Winter's Zion Lutheran Church. "By 'competition,' I mean other religions. If you want to profess the

Christian faith, you better know what you are up against."
 
 

But the Wicca and other sites were apparently regarded with alarm by a library monitor. According

to Burklin, the monitor saw the student looking at the sites and ordered her off them three times

over a period of several weeks last winter. The reasons are unclear, but Burklin said she believes

the monitor mistakenly associated the sites with Satanism.
 
 

One school board member, Hazel J. Ryan, said it was her understanding that the sites were

considered inappropriate because they were "into stuff beyond magic and witchery." Burklin, she

said, was "not looking up what most people consider religion."
 
 

And at one point, Burklin said, she was told by the school principal that she could only view

Christianity-related sites. Both the principal and school superintendent, David Scarpino, deny this.
 
 

Whatever the case, the nine-member school board, which had already discussed drafting an Internet

use policy, began to work on one in earnest in reaction to the issue, Ryan said. The board has

asked the school superintendent to draft a separate policy for the after-hours community program.
 
 

Scarpino, the school district superintendent, declined to answer questions about the policy, saying

the matter had been widely misrepresented in the press. He did, however, state that in adopting the

policy, the school board was repeating a step taken by many school districts. He said he was "well

versed in the First Amendment and the Constitution," that the new policy had been reviewed by the

school district's lawyers, and that "it is completely acceptable and fine."
 
 

Ryan, meanwhile, concedes the term "controversial materials" may be problematic, but, she argued,

officials must make sure students are viewing online material appropriate for a school setting.

"Maybe 'controversial' shouldn't be the word, but I don't know what the word should be," she said.

"When students are in school, there should be some limits to what they watch."
 
 

But Dalglish argues that when schools make the Internet available to

students, they must keep the flow of information as reasonably free as

possible. Dalglish believes some rules are justified. It would be

appropriate, for example, to require that Internet use during class time be

devoted to the lesson at hand, she said. And for study hall and other free

time use, she believes "time, manner, place restrictions" -- in which use of

the Internet would be given first to those working on class assignments -- would pass muster.
 
 

But restrictions based on legal content, and, in particular, religious content, she argues, are not

acceptable. "If you let kids play Minesweeper and look up the New York Yankees," she said, "you

also have to let them look up Buddhism."
 
 

So far, Burklin has refrained from religious Web searches during school hours and in the community

program. But her mother said that come fall, she wants Burklin to be able to conduct wide-ranging

searches during her free time at school if she wishes.
 
 

"We view the Internet as an extension of the library," she said. "If a student can go to the library and

look up People magazine, Burklin should be able to go to the Internet and look up Wiccans or what

she wants to."
 
 

Sites Nielsen says she was barred from viewing:

The Living Wicca Foundation

http://www.geocities.com/~lwf/pamphlet.htm

Pandora's Pagan Web

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3038/

Schools censor student's home web pages!
 
 

From: atom ant

Date: 16 Aug 1998

Time: 13:49:37

Remote Name: 206.173.170.49
 
 

Comments
 
 

Some schools are trying to censor student's home web pages and punish students for what they publish outside school, on the

web.
 
 

Read about it in this New York Times article:
 
 

August 13, 1998, The New York Times
 
 

Home Web Sites Thrust Students Into Censorship Disputes
 
 

By Terry McManus
 
 

Sean O'Brien had a beef with a high-school teacher. He thought that the 36-year-old band instructor, Raymond Walczuk,

tended to blame him unfairly for problems around school. In response, O'Brien, a 17-year-old baritone horn player from

Westlake High School, near Cleveland, last spring set up a home-based Web site that insulted Walczuk.
 
 

O'Brien, for instance, ran a photo of Walczuk and described him as "an overweight middle-age man who doesn't like to get

haircuts." O'Brien also said Walczuk "likes to involve himself in everything you do." He included Walczuk's home address and

phone number.
 
 

When word of the site got around school, the administration suspended O'Brien for 10 days, told him to remove the Web site

and threatened to expel him. He and his parents took action, accusing the school district of violating his right to free speech and

suing the district for $550,000.
 
 

The broad outlines of the O'Brien case may have a familiar ring. Legal experts say school censorship of student Web sites

outside schools is on the rise, giving civil liberties advocates plenty of reasons to fret -- and intervene.
 
 

Ann Beeson, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in New York, said, "These Web cases have become somewhat

analogous to the student newspaper cases of the past, where the school tries to say, 'You can't talk about condoms in the

school newspaper.' Except that with Web sites, people tend to become more alarmed because people outside the school find

out about them."
 
 

While the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in 1988 on the censorship of student newspapers, it has yet to deal

with a case involving school censorship of a Web site set up by a student outside school. In the 1988 case, it ruled that a high

school principal in Hazelwood, Mo., could control the content of the school newspaper because an article interfered with the

school's "basic educational mission." But when students publish outside school, on the Web or elsewhere, they are covered by

the First Amendment right to free expression.
 
 

In recent months, a number of Web-censorship incidents have occurred.
 
 

In McKinney, Tex., a middle-school student, Aaron Smith, was suspended for setting up a Web site called C.H.O.W., for

Chihuahua Haters of the World, on a school computer. In a more serious case, a 15-year-old in Statesboro, Ga., was accused

of posting terroristic threats against his high-school principal on a personal Web site and was arrested.
 
 

An Internet magazine called Bolt Reporter runs school-newspaper articles that have been banned by administrators and gives

students a forum to discuss school censorship.
 
 

While the courts have made no definitive rulings on how much discretion schools have in such cases, civil libertarians say that

they expect students, and the First Amendment, to prevail if they ever go before a jury with censorship complaints.
 
 

The A.C.L.U. of Eastern Missouri will file a First Amendment suit soon in a dispute similar to the O'Brien case, said Denise

Lieberman, a legal director with the group. The case involves a Marble Hill, Mo., student who was forced to remove a

personal Web site in February by Woodland High School. Among other things, the student, Brandon Beussink, used his Web

site to poke fun at Woodland High's official Web site. He also encouraged visitors to tell the principal that the page was bad

and used profanity in describing the school and faculty members.
 
 

Woodland High officials complained about the vulgarity and "open disrespect."
 
 

Woodland High disciplined the teen-ager even though he immediately complied with its order to remove the site.
 
 

"The school suspended the student for 10 days and failed him for the entire semester," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director

of that A.C.L.U. district.
 
 

Beussink will start school in the fall as a second-semester junior instead of a senior.
 
 

Ms. Jacobs said the law was clear on issues of free speech for students. Schools cannot interfere with what students say on

their own time outside school, she contended, adding that the principle extended to statements made on the Internet.
 
 

Woodland High School's lawyer, Kenneth McManaman, sees the Beussink matter in a different light. In a May 5 letter to Ms.

Jacobs, he said: "There is no doubt in my mind that the school district had the right, authority and even obligation to prohibit

this sort of activity by Brandon Beussink. Instead of continuing to whine, I would suggest Beussink take his punishment like a

man, get back to school and start behaving like he should in the classroom."
 
 

In a later interview, McManaman said, "If the A.C.L.U. thinks they can come down here and win a case, let them come."
 
 

In the O'Brien case, an out-of-court settlement was reached last April in which the district reinstated the student, issued an

apology and paid him $30,000 in damages. A judge had earlier said that O'Brien could re-establish his Web site, but he

decided against that.
 
 

Beverly Reep, the former superintendent of the Westlake School District, said the district believed that it had technically

violated O'Brien's constitutional rights. "And whether you believe something is right or wrong, it's irrelevant to the degree that

there was a technicality in his favor," she said.
 
 

"We made a mistake."
 
 

The district's lawyer, John Britton, added, "The First Amendment was overlooked."
 
 

Nevertheless, Ms. Reep said Walczuk had been demeaned by O'Brien's Web comments, and some agree with her. In an

anonymous letter posted to the Cleveland Live Web site, a student in Walczuk's class said: "Sean has always had an attitude

toward Walczuk, but why did he have to make a Web site about him? If a teacher was to make a Web site about a student

that they didn't like, I can guarantee you that they would be fired or suffer severe consequences."
 
 

For his part, O'Brien feels vindicated by the settlement -- he split the award evenly with his lawyers and donated a portion to

the A.C.L.U. -- but the experience has left him far from sanguine. "I guess it would've been nice if the whole thing didn't

happen and I just went to school like normal," he said.
 
 

O'Brien said that facing Walczuk in class after the suspension had been awkward. He said that he would not return to band

next year. (Walczuk did not reply to repeated requests through his lawyer for an interview.)
 
 

O'Brien's advice for anyone firing a Web broadside at a school or teacher? "Keep it true," he said. "Don't lie."
 
 
 
 

Re: Schools censor student's home web pages!
 
 

From: zardaz

Date: 01 Sep 1998

Time: 09:58:39

Remote Name: 206.173.172.73
 
 

Comments
 
 

Here is another article about the student who was suspended because he criticized his school on his PERSONAL web page.

The language he used on his web page is quoted in this article.
 
  http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1998/8/28website.asp

Re: Schools censor student's home web pages!
 
 

From: zardaz

Date: 04 Sep 1998

Time: 22:43:58

Remote Name: 206.173.172.44
 
 

Comments
 
 

More about some schools trying to punish students for what they write OUTSIDE school on their PERSONAL web pages.
 
 

From the New York Times:
 
 

September 4, 1998
 
 

By CARL S. KAPLAN
 
 

Lawsuit Will Test Boundaries Of Student Speech on the Web
 
 

Can a student's personal Web site, which can be accessed through school computers, be considered "on campus?" And can

vulgar insults about administrators and teachers on that site disrupt classes?
 
 

Those are just some of the novel legal questions posed by a recent case in southeastern Missouri, where a high school

principal's right to discipline a student for the contents of his personal Web site have been challenged by a local affiliate of the

American Civil Liberties Union as a violation of the First Amendment.
 
 

The case, which pits Brandon Beussink, 17, of Marble Hill, Mo., against his school district, is the latest in a handful of incidents

involving the free-speech rights of students on personal Web pages, say legal experts.
 
 

So far, none of the cases has resulted in a legal precedent that would set guidelines for this new area of student speech,

although a few cases have been settled on terms favorable to students. The Missouri case, filed in federal district court in St.

Louis, may yield a court decision, however, as both sides appear to be eager for a legal fight.
 
 

"Our position is the student used the Internet as a tool to criticize his school, and he has every right to do so," said Deborah

Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, which filed suit on behalf of Beussink.
 
 

Kenneth C. McManaman, a lawyer for the Woodland R-IV School District, where Beussink attends Woodland High School,

said his side is not interested in settling. "The school board is real comfortable with what they did," he said.
 
 

Legal papers filed in the case say that in late 1997 or early 1998, Beussink, then a junior, used a home computer to set up a

personal Web page after school hours, through an Internet account paid for by his parents.
 
 

The site contained, among other things, profane insults directed toward his school and its faculty and administration, according

to the ACLU's Jacobs. In addition, the site discussed in less volatile language Beussink's views on problems with the school:

"[T]he students are treated like they are lower than dirt, and are constantly reminded of this." The page also included a link to

the official Woodland High School home page.
 
 

In February, the school's principal, Yancy Poorman, told Beussink that he would be suspended from school for 10 days as a

punishment for creating and posting his site, according to court papers. In a formal disciplinary notice, Poorman said that

Beussink, among other things, maintained a home page with "profanity, inappropriate comments and slanderous remarks," and

that the incident was Beussink's third abuse of computers, according to the filings.
 
 

After Beussink removed the offending site and completed his punishment, the school informed him that his absences from class

exceeded the allowable limit. He thus failed all of his classes for the second semester, and he may be forced to graduate late.
 
 

In his suit, filed on August 28, Beussink asked the court to award him unspecified monetary damages, payment of his legal fees

and the reinstatement of his lost academic credits. The school district has 60 days to respond to the complaint. A hearing in the

fall is likely.
 
 

Poorman, the high school principal, declined to comment on the case, as did Beussink. Calls to the district superintendent were

not immediately returned.
 
 

Julie Underwood, general counsel for the National School Boards Association in Alexandria, Va., said the United States

Supreme Court has decided in a series of cases that a school may exercise three levels of control over student speech.
 
 

At the highest level, a school may impose control on student newspapers and other school-sponsored curriculum-related

activities in response to various misdeeds, including a lack of fairness or an invasion of privacy, she said. Second, a school may

also control lewd and profane student speech "within school," such as at an assembly. Finally, a school may regulate the

on-campus or off-campus speech of a student if the speech risks causing a "material and substantial" disruption of classroom

activities, she said.
 
 

In a recent interview, McManaman, the lawyer for the Woodland school district, indicated that Beussink was properly

disciplined because the Web site contained profane speech and was aimed at an audience of students and teachers -- thus

within the legal precedents allowing a school to restrict profane language.
 
 

"This is a new kind of area we're talking about -- cyberspace," McManaman said. He said a strong link between Beussink's

Web site and the school was forged because the student learned how to use the Internet at school, he signed an Internet

agreement at school pledging to use the Net responsibly, he linked to the official school site and he created the site with the aim

of communicating with students and teachers.
 
 

"A school has an educational mission and obligation to teach values," McManaman said. "There wouldn't be a suspension here

if [Beussink] didn't use inappropriate language," he said, adding that Beussink also had a record of past computer misuse.
 
 

Even if the profanity did not give the school enough basis to discipline Beussink, McManaman said, the site would still warrant

a reprimand because it was off-campus speech that clearly disrupted the school. For example, the site was read by students in

the school's computer classes, he said.
 
 

Underwood of the National School Boards Association agreed that under certain circumstances, a student's personal Web

page may be considered "within school" or even related to a school's curricular functions.
 
 

"The question, really, in this case is whether the speech is pervasively vulgar and 'within school,'" she said. "Theoretically, a

personal Web site could be 'within school,'" depending on how many links there are to school sites and other factors, she

added. Underwood said she didn't know enough of the facts of the Beussink case to reach a conclusion.
 
 

Other lawyers pounced on McManaman's notion, however.
 
 

For McManaman to say the Internet is so pervasive that a student's personal Web site is somehow connected to a school is

"just crazy," said Ann Beeson, a lawyer with the ACLU. "That is completely unsupported by the nature of the Net. You have

to find speech on the Net. You have to look for it."
 
 

Robert M. O'Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and a professor at the

University of Virginia's law school, said, "It's an interesting theory, but it seems to me it doesn't really apply in this setting ...

[because] all the student's activity clearly occurred off campus.
 
 

"The fact that a Web site can be accessed on campus in a computer class is not much different from a student bringing a copy

of a leaflet to school and passing it around," O'Neil said.
 
 

O'Neil added that he didn't think Beussink's Web site was sufficiently disruptive to enable the school to discipline the student

for off-campus speech. "If all the Web page did was contain an embarrassing link and cast embarrassment or disapproval on

the school," then the school's attempt to control the student's speech was not legitimate, he said.
 
 

Paul Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, a trade group based in Arlington, Va.,

said he believed the Woodland school district will lose the case, given the deference the courts have shown to student speech.

But he said he could understand the motivations of the Woodland school principal.
 
 

"Parents expect the schools to create an atmosphere of civil speech, and by not acting to combat profanity, a school may be seen to condone it," he said. "When a school does act, it can run into [legal] problems. It's an interesting dilemma for schools."
 
 

On the other hand, profane student speech is not new. "Kids have been saying bad things about teachers since schools were invented," Houston said.
 
 

STUDENTS JAILED !

From: Zardaz

Date: 06 Apr 1998

Schools want students to learn about their Constitutional Rights; just don't try exercising them.

In Florida, 9 high school students were JAILED and expelled from school for exercising their First Amendment Rights by
publishing a pamphlet of their writing!!! Here’s the story :
 
 

Los Angeles Times April 6, 1998

Students Give, Get Lesson in First Amendment Protections

By Mike Clary Times Staff Writer
 
 

MIAMI--The 20-page handwritten pamphlet was crude, offensive and in poor taste. Everyone, including the high school
students who wrote it, agree on that.

Not only was the underground publication rife with profanity and racial epithets, but the principal, Timothy Dawson, was
depicted engaging in a sex act. Moreover, one essayist mused, "I often have wondered what would happen if I shot Dawson
in the head." But did that constitute a threat on the principal's life? Should the students--five girls and four boys--have been
charged with hate crimes, arrested and jailed? And just what are the free-speech rights of children in public schools?

Those questions still reverberate in Miami, six weeks after the Killian High School students who wrote "First Amendment"
spent the night in jail, were suspended and later expelled.

Both the contents of the pamphlet and the punishment meted out continue to fuel lively debate here, especially after a local
weekly paper, New Times, reprinted "First Amendment" under the headline: "Why are we showing you the contents of the
Killian High pamphlet? Because we can!"

Constitutional scholar Donald M. Jones, a law professor at the University of Miami, said the flap over the publication shows
that "we still have a vast reservoir of immaturity when it comes to discussions of race and free speech." Jones said jailing the
students was indefensible. "We can't prevent people from thinking in ways that are prejudiced and hateful," Jones said. "There
shouldn't be thought crimes in 1998." Indeed, officials refused to prosecute the students, saying the 1945 Florida law under
which they were charged is "unconstitutional and unenforceable." But state Atty. Katherine Fernandez Bundle did comment
that she found the pamphlet contained "language and drawings of an outrageous and highly offensive nature."

The arrests and expulsions have alarmed civil libertarians. "This is an extreme overreaction. I've never heard of high school
students being jailed for distributing a pamphlet," said Mark Goodman, an attorney and executive director of the Student Press
Law Center, a Washington-based group that provides legal advice to student publications. "There is no question this is
material many people would be offended by. But a threat? You have to look at who these students are."

Seven of the so-called Killian Nine are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has vowed to sue the
school system for false arrest. "What is going on around the country is a tendency to think that kids don't have rights, or have
fewer rights," said Howard Simon executive director of the ACLU's Florida chapter. "But the Ist Amendment does not stop at
the schoolhouse door."

Killian, with an enrollment of 4,000, is considered one of the top high schools in South Florida. All of the students involved in
producing "First Amendment" were members of the school's art club, and several were on the honor roll. One of the Killian
Nine, 18-year-old David Morales, said he and the others have apologized for the pamphlet and added that they had no
malicious intent. "Anybody with an IQ over 5 could see the pamphlet was a satire," Morales told the Miami Herald. But
neither Dawson nor school administrators saw it that way. After being provided the names of the Killian Nine, Dawson called
school police and had them arrested, saying: "They have threatened to kill me."

And school system administrators have taken a hard line. "This is racial, profane, obscene," commented Deputy Supt. Henry
Fraind. ''Does that bother anyone except us?" About 2,500 copies of "First Amendment" were printed, but it is unclear how
many were distributed.

"The pamphlet ran the gamut of expression, from painful efforts at self-examination to romantic poetry to blunt criticism of
school policies," said New Times Editor Jim Mullin. "And much of it was admirable for its literary ambition. Yes, there was
some obscenity, and the principal took his share of hits. But death threats? Get real."
 
 
 

Should students be forced to salute fhe flag
 
 

From: zeltoid

Date: 31 May 1998

At a school in San Diego a girl was PUNISHED because she wanted to exercise her personal beliefs by just sitting quietly

while the class saluted the flag and said the pledge of allegiance.
 
 

From: zeltoid

Date: 31 May 1998
 
 

The US Supreme Court said this is unconstitutional. This has been the law for more than 50 years. Here is the Supreme Court

case:
 
 

West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette

319 U.S. 624 (1943) No. 591

Subject Categories: Freedom of Speech

Decided: June 14, 1943

The Facts of the Case

The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the program of activities in all public schools. All

teachers and pupils were required to honor the Flag; refusal to salute was treated as "insubordination" and was punishable by

expulsion and charges of delinquency.

The Constitutional Question

Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment?

The Conclusion

The Court held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a salute

was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas. "Compulsory unification of opinion," the Court held, was

doomed to failure and was antithetical to First Amendment values. Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson argued that "[i]f

there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox

in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
 
 

From: zeltoid

Date: 02 Jun 1998

the school superintendent now is going to let her sit quietly during the pledge. But in September he is going to kick her out of

class! This superintendent thinks he is above the law!
 
 

Censorship in Canada

From: Sarah

Date: 07 Jun 1998

I found a really interesting page about censorship in Canada. I live in the USA but near the border of Canada. I thought things

were bad in the USA but REALLY!!!

I guess things are almost as bad here.

How do you students in Canada feel about this?

I think there should not be censorship for older students, like high school age. Younger students need to be sheltered more.

But high school students are old enough to read these things. HS students are almost adults so they need to learn how to deal

with it.

http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/pages/chronicle/chronicle.html

http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/pages/chronicle/recent.html
 
 
 
 

From: µ

Date: 10 Jun 1998

Damn, i thought that the US was bad, but if you tried to pull that kind of shit; that kind of

censorship, you wouldn't last two seconds without a lawsuit. It makes me grateful for the first ammendment, and reminds me

how many assholes challenge it every year.
 
 
 
 

CDC II
 
 

From: zardaz

Date: 21 Jun 1998
 
 

Last year the internet censorship law, called the Communications Decency Act (CDA), was declared unconstitutional by the

US Supreme Court, even though many members of the court, the majority of Congress AND the Clinton-Gore administration

all fought to keep it law.
 
 

Now some members of Congress are trying to pass another internet censorship law which some people are calling "Son of

CDA." and CDA II. ( Senate Bill 1482) sponsored by Sen. Dan Coats (R-Indiana)
 
 

Also, Congress is attempting to pass a federal law that requires almost all schools and libraries to use internet filter software.

This is The Internet School Filtering Act (Senate Bill 1619) sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona)
 
 

These laws must be opposed!

These links have info about these bills and also an easy system that can be used to send opposition emails and faxes to

Congress.

ACLU-Act Now

ACLU-McCain Bill

eff.org/blue ribbon/relaunch_
 
 
 
 

From: Rotifer

Date: 22 Jun 1998
 
 

What exactly does filtering software filter? Libraries are pretty strict anyways, at least the SBJH one was. We weren't even

allowed to visit this forum, or any forum or board for that matter. They already have strict policies about what sites you can go

to.
 
 

From: zardaz

Date: 22 Jun 1998

Here are some examples:

http://www.spectacle.org/cwp/ada-yoyo.htm
 
 

http://www.spectacle.org/cwp/intro.htm
 
 

Here is a good site at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (MIT):

MIT Student Association for Freedom of Expression (SAFE) Home Page
 
 

Killian Nine

From: david morales

Date: 26 Jun 1998

I was one of the adults arrested for the pamphlet in miami. In fact, that's me quoted in the article. Since then, there's been 2

more created and more on the way. I think in today's corrupt school system that students have already lost their rights. Down

here, a kid named Kyle stevens was suspended as well for criticizing his school on his web page. As the great philosopher

chris rock would say "What kind ignorant shit is that?" regardless, im happy to see my peers know whats going on and fighting

against the system. Over here, there was a protest rally to protest prior review in newspapers (another way the school board

was trying to censor us), five of us nine went and were shunned by these hypocritical punks. it was amazing. if you want to

know more about us or anything aforementioned go to (his site) thank you for your time
 
 

Re: Killian Nine

From: zardaz

Date: 26 Jun 1998

Thanks for the post.

Your case was in an article in the LA Times on April 6, 1998. A copy is on this page:

http://www.tentler.com/StudentsRights.htm

This is one of the worst cases of abuse of students we have heard about. The school had the police arrest you because of a

pamphlet you wrote!!

What is the latest information on this? Are you going to sue????
 
 
 
 

From: david morales

Date: 27 Jun 1998

thanks for your support. for all of you guys support. that article is one of the many written on us so far. so far the situation is

that the ones who haven't graduated yet (four of us have this year), are probably going to attend the other school. we're also

looking to sue the school with the ACLU as our lawyers. like i said before, 2 more pamphlets have been made and distributed

and will be posted soon on our web page. more on the way. this has turned into a greater issue than i ever thought. this is the

school system trying to muffle our voices and censor us any way they can. like i said before, it's amazing.
 
 

Dress codes

From: pLuTo

Date: 06 May 1998

I don't think the school should care aobut what we wear. It doesn't effect them, (unless we come naked or something like

that). But why should the school care whether girls wear shirts with straps as thin as spagetti or as thick as rigatoni or

whatever. It is just stupid. I think we should be able to wear what we want to at school.
 
 

From: Rotifer

Date: 07 May 1998

heard about the guy who went to Berkeley naked to school for a whole year? i'm serious.
 
 
 
 

Re: Seriously now

From: Zardaz

Date: 07 May 1998

Yeah, he was called The Naked Guy. He went to classes and walked around campus completely naked as some kind of free

speech protest.
 
 
 
 

From: OpIs

Date: 07 May 1998
 
 

Well, they eventually kicked out that Naked guy for his grades, a pity he couldn't have stayed longer. Everybody got bored

after a month of so, and he was no longer a disturbance
 
 

From: Yokel

Date: 07 May 1998

He should have been kicked out for visual pollution!
 
 

From: S.O.

Date: 10 May 1998

We received this email today. Anybody have ideas to help her out?
 
 

"Hi, my name is suzanne
 
 

my three kids go to a private catholic school. they have a dress code now that is pretty lax just a collar on shirts, no jeans, no

colored jeans no logos for other products, any way not a bad dress code. now there is a push for a uniform, the real thing, 3

colors to shoose from. i can't stand it! so i am trying to find data to counter attack, regarding academics, social, blah blah, i

need info specifically for the catholic or private school scene. can you help me?"
 
 

Re: dress codes in private schools
 
 

From: S.O.

Date: 10 May 1998

Private school dress codes are even more difficult to challenge than those in public school. In private schools they can make

you wear almost whatever they want, because it is not the government that is setting the rules. But if private schools get

government money, then they are supposed to comply with many laws that apply to public schools. Your kids go to a catholic

school which does not get government money, so you are probably going to lose if you claim that the dress code violates the

student’s constitutional rights.

You should try arguing that a strict dress code is just not necessary. With all the scare tactics being used to promote dress

codes, that they prevent gang violence. etc., etc., you are probably going to have a tough fight unless you can get many other

parents and older students to organize a strong opposition.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

S.O.
 
 

Academic Freedom

From: sandy

Date: 13 May 1998

A high school teacher put on a school play that won many awards. Then she was denounced by some prudes for staging "dirty plays" and was punished by being transferred to a middle school. Now she is fighting to get her job back and for freedom of

speech and academic freedom in high schools.

Everyone should support this brave teacher.

Read about it in this Los Angeles Times article:
 
 

Los Angeles Times Wednesday, May 13, 1998

Final Legal Exam Sought for Idea of Academic Freedom

Law: Teacher who staged controversial play and lost her position is appealing to U.S. Supreme Court

By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Times Staff Writer

Teacher, Peggy Boring had compiled a winning record at the regional and state competitions that would have made her a local legend had football or basketball been her field.

In the 1992 regional competition, for example, she and her cast of four young actresses swept up 17 of 21 possible awards for their performance of playwright Lee Blessing's "Independence." And they placed second in the state finals.

But none of this protected her when the Asheville community discovered that "Independence" is about a single mother's effort to hold on to her three grown but troubled daughters, one of whom is a lesbian. Denounced for staging "dirty plays," Boring was transferred to a middle school.

Now her fight to get back her job may answer a fundamental issue of law: Do teachers, while they are in the classroom, have constitutional rights of free speech and academic freedom?

In February, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out her lawsuit on a 7-6 vote and characterized "academic freedom" in high schools as something of a dangerous constitutional myth left over from the 1960s. In public schools, the court stressed, elected school boards control the curriculum--and that involves everything in learning, including the school newspaper, library books and dramatic presentations.

But if there is no academic freedom, Boring and her legal allies warn, teachers will be vulnerable to retaliation by community activists who are upset by reports of classroom conduct that they deem objectionable. "I decided to see this through because embattled teachers deserve some protection," said Boring, 55.

Group of Prominent Ministers Complains

She plans to appeal her case to the Supreme Court today, although the justices will probably not decide until the fall whether to hear it.

Ironically, "Independence," the play that cost Boring her high school job, was produced for interscholastic competition. It was not intended to be performed at her school, the Charles D. Owen High School in Asheville.

But a portion of "Independence" was staged during a special English class. A student described the scene to her parents, who protested to the principal. Boring's notoriety spread, and before long a group of prominent ministers complained that she had brought foul language as well as "blasphemy, premarital sex, homosexuality and promiscuity" into the high school.

Frank Yeager, the county schools superintendent, ordered her transferred to the middle school. "The people I heard from were upset with me for not firing her," said Yeager, who since has retired.

"There was a pretty strong feeling [that] this sort of thing should not happen in public school."

Believing she had been pushed out of her job unfairly, Boring was convinced that her drama deserved a second act--with a happier ending. She filed suit contending that the school board had violated her 1st Amendment right to free speech and academic freedom by punishing her over the controversial content of an advanced theater production.

Principal Reportedly Told in Advance

Teachers should not be punished, her lawyers argued, just because of the ideas or behavior of the characters in students' assigned reading. Boring pointed out that she had told the principal of the play, given him a copy of the script and invited him to attend a performance. He paid no heed until the parents protested.

Act II also had a bad ending for Boring, however, and it carried a far wider message. The influential and conservative U.S. 4th Circuit

Court of Appeals said that teachers have no rights to free speech and academic freedom. Judge H. Emory Widener Jr., writing for the court, called her case "nothing more than an ordinary employment dispute. That being so, the plaintiff has no 1st Amendment rights derived from her selection of the play." In the public schools, Widener held, elected school boards control the curriculum.

"We agree with Plato and [English philosopher Edmund] Burke and

Justice [Felix] Frankfurter that the school, not the teacher, has the right to fix the curriculum," the judge wrote. Teachers who overstep these bounds--even when the boundaries are not made clear in advance--cannot turn to the courts for legal protection, the appellate majority added.

The outcome starkly illustrates a trend that troubles teachers, their lawyers and some 1st Amendment advocates.

On the one hand, community activists on the right and left are becoming quicker to protest developments in the classroom that offend them. For Christian conservatives, the offense often involves matters of foul language, sex or homosexuality. Protests from the left are triggered by incidents involving alleged racism or sexism.

Often, individual teachers are targeted. And at the same time, the more conservative courts have made clear that they will not protect a teacher who comes under fire.

"This is a potentially dangerous decision in this climate," Elliot

Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way, said of the North Carolina case. "We are seeing more incidents where teachers are targeted, and this decision puts them at significant risk.

It says school boards have absolute carte blanche to discipline them over curriculum decisions which someone later disagrees with."

The ruling also perturbed lawyers at the National Education Assn., the huge teachers' union.

"This was not about the curriculum or even about whether this play was appropriate or inappropriate," said Michael Simpson, the NEA's assistant general counsel. "This was about a school board covering its behind because [it was] getting pressure from Christian conservatives."

6 Judges Call Teacher 'Scapegoat'

The six dissenting judges on the appeals court agreed, saying that school officials in Asheville had made Boring "a scapegoat" and used her to shield them.

"This is a case about a dedicated teacher who in no way violated any aspect of the approved curriculum, who followed every previously required standard set forth for the selection and approval of school productions and who, when requested to do so, redacted certain portions of the production," wrote Judge Clyde Hamilton.

The teacher, "nevertheless, lost her position as a result of the production, all for the sole purpose of shielding the principal and board from the wrath of the public outcry." Boring said she was surprised that the appeals court regarded her case as one involving control of the curriculum. "I wasn't trying to wrest the curriculum from anyone," she said. "I was trying to provide an educational experience for an advanced theater group."

Her appeal to the Supreme Court--the case is called Boring vs. Buncombe County Board of Education (a name Charles Dickens might have invented)--focuses instead on teachers' rights of free speech and academic freedom in the classroom.

Courts Divided Over Free Speech in School

Teachers have the same free-speech rights as other citizens to speak out on matters of public concern, or even to write letters to local newspapers criticizing their school boards. But the lower courts are divided over whether these general rights extend into school.

On a rhetorical level, "academic freedom" lives on through some glowing passages in the Supreme Court opinions of the 1960s.

Boring's lawsuit quotes all of them.

"Academic freedom [is] a transcendent value to all of us [and] a special concern of the 1st Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom," wrote Justice William J. Brennan in 1967. "The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools."

The high court's decision in that case upheld the free-speech right of Harry Keyishian, an English professor at a state college in Buffalo, N.Y., who had challenged the state law that required teachers to sign loyalty oaths and disavow a belief in communism.

Two years later, during the Vietnam War, the high court sided with high school students who wore black armbands to class as a protest. "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," wrote Justice Abe Fortas in the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District.

By the 1980s, however, the Supreme Court had backed away from those broad pronouncements without ever specifically overruling the earlier decisions.

In 1986, for example, the court upheld a high school principal's decision to discipline a student leader for including a sexual innuendo in a speech to an assembly. The student's speech must bow to the demands of preserving order and civility at school, the court said in Bethel School District vs. Fraser.

Two years later, the justices said that the student editors of a school newspaper do not have a free-speech right to choose the articles.

The decision, in Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, said that the school paper was part of the curriculum and it upheld a principal's last-minute move to excise two articles on teen pregnancy.

In the decade since, that decision has been applied regularly against teachers. The Richmond appeals court relied on it directly in the ruling against Boring.

School Officials' Authority Upheld

The Supreme Court's opinion confirmed "educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions and other expressive activities . . . that may be characterized as part of the curriculum," Judge Widener wrote for the appeals court. School officials, not teachers, have the exclusive power to decide the curriculum, he concluded.

Gwendolyn Gregory, a veteran attorney for the National School Boards Assn., said that the appeals court was right, even if its decision seems unfair in Boring's case.

"I envy those kids. I was a theater student in high school and would have loved to have this teacher," she said. "But you can't run a school if the teachers have a right to go to court and second-guess decisions about the curriculum. We say it is an absolute right of the school board and the administrators to make those decisions.

"This issue has been popping all around the country," she added, although teachers' claims have rarely been as attractive as Boring's.

Among those asserting their free-speech rights have been teachers who have made racist comments, used gutter language or made remarks characterized as sexually harassing.

"The term 'academic freedom' still gets thrown around a lot but I don't think there is any such right in a legal sense," Gregory said.

Teachers are not claiming a right to control the curriculum, countered Jeremiah Collins, a lawyer working on Boring's appeal.

Had the principal said that the teacher could not use the play for her drama class, she would have no right to disagree, he said. "But this case goes much further. This says anything you say or do in the classroom can be grounds for firing you or disciplining you," Collins said.

Elizabeth Carpenter, the student actress who played the key role in the original drama, said that she is still taken aback by the controversy that engulfed her teacher.

"There was a lesbian character on stage. That was all. That might seem like a minor thing but, in a small mountain community, that was enough to throw up a red flag," said Carpenter, who now works at the Seattle Repertory Theater.

She praised Boring as "a great teacher who changed my life. My parents didn't have a lot of money and she got me on the track to get a scholarship and an apprenticeship in the theater."

'Why Do They Hate You, Grandma?'

Regardless of the outcome in the Supreme Court, the case already has had something of a happy ending for Boring.

She decided last year to leave the Asheville area and put the controversy behind her.

"I think the final straw," she said, "was having my grandchild come home from first grade and ask me: 'Why do they hate you, Grandma?' "

Soon after, she was offered a position as the drama teacher at a new arts magnet school in Charlotte.

"It was a painful route to get here," Boring said, "but this is heaven for me."

Copyright Los Angeles Times
 
 

From: µ

Date: 18 May 1998

Interesting. apparently "prominent ministers" haven't gone to high school for the last fifty years or so. just going to high school entails regular contact with "blasphemy, premarital sex, homosexuality and promiscuity". It's not something you can escape hearing about and seeing, and it's not as is those subjects are unacceptable forms of art. all teenagers know about these things when they're in high school, and if they are offended by these things, they should just learn to live with them, because they'll have to deal with them the rest of their lives, and the first ammendment prohibits forcing people to hise these things because hyperconservative assholes can't handle them.
 
 

From: Lindsey

Date: 24 May 1998

I agree that we should all give our support to teachers who try to inspire high school students and try to teach them at the highest level.

I am a student and I don't think most students truly appreciate it when they have really good teachers.

People have voiced some some interesting opinions here. Teachers should voice their opinions here too. I want to be a teacher. It would be interesting if teachers and students shared their opinions more so they could understand each other better.
 
 
 
 

Re: Dress code vs school newspaper

From: Mencken

Date: 05 Nov 1997

It is interesting to compare our illustrious Santa Barbara school boards written policy regarding school newspaper freedom with the new draconian dress code. The Board's policy for the school newspaper claims to protect freedom of expression and comply with the U.S. Constitution and California law. According to the written policy adopted by the Board regarding "Protected Speech", the school can NOT ban the publication of anything "solely because it is controversial, takes extreme "fringe" or minority opinions, is distasteful, unpopular, or unpleasant." The school newspaper policy adopted by the Board also states that the newspapers editors can Not be prevented from publishing material UNLESS it will cause a "material and substantial disruption of school activities." The policy states " Material that stimulates heated discussion or debate doesn't constitute the type of disruption prohibited." The policy also states " To be considered disruptive, specific facts must exist upon which one could reasonably forecast that a likelihood of immediate, substantial material disruption to normal school activity would occur if the material were further distributed or has occurred as a result of the material's distribution. Mere undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance isn't enough; school administrators must be able affirmatively to show substantial facts that reasonably support a forecast of likely disruption."

The vague and unreasonable dress code takes away this same freedom of expression. According to the Board's wildly inconsistent written policies, the student editors would have a right to publish in the school newspaper the same symbols, designs, graphics and photos which would be BANNED under the dress code from student T-shirts, backpacks and clothing styles on campus. More on this absurdity later.
 
 

Re: Dress code vs school newspaper

From: Mencken

Date: 08 Nov 1997

So, how is it that the school board can adopt a policy promoting and protecting freedom of expression in the school newspapers of the district but then enact a dress code that is an anathema to such freedom. It would be interesting to see when the board last considered the newspaper policy. It might have been years ago when the board had different members.

Some of the current members of the board may not even know about the newspaper policy and would be horrified if they found out. Imagine the "closed session" of the next board meeting:
 
 

"This is a disaster just waiting to happen. Just think, one of those crazy kid editors in journalism might try to print something in the school newspaper that someone, somewhere might find crude! Or even vulgar! Or, even, ohmygod, inflammatory!!"

"Gasp!! No!!"

"Hey, didn’t we ban that kind of crap with the dress code?"

"Yes, but some of our dreamy, ultra-liberal predecessors adopted this ridiculous school newspaper policy protecting student rights of expression. Obviously they did not understand that hormones are raging in these children."

"Well, when I was a high school student 35 years ago, we couldn’t print any of that kind of crap in the school paper. We just printed mostly sports and announcements."

" Hey, let’s just make the dress code rules apply to the school newspapers. Heh, heh, heh. That way we wont be getting so many of those goddamn calls from the same 10 or 15 loudmouths and crazies that always raise hell because they think the schools are not strict enough and should resemble boot camps and prisons."
 
 
 
 

Re: Dress code vs school newspaper

From: Speedy

Date: 09 Nov 1997

The school board need not worry about the editors of any of the high school newspapers in the district exercising their right and actually printing something truly controversial. Have you read any of these insipid little sheets lately? For most of the editors the Realtors Weekly is a model of journalistic excellence.
 
 

Re: Dress code vs school newspaper

From: Evan Long

Date: 27 Feb 1998

What is this "dress code?" It's a ploy to get people out of their own selves! That's what I believe. Sure it has been proven that it cuts down on school violence, but what about us being "us???" How can we be ourselves and express ourselves if we are not allowed to!?
 
 
 
 

Previous Dress Code

From: zum

Date: 06 Nov 1997

There must have been a dress code at SBH before this one. I wonder how different it was, or was it less harsh? You activists should get a copy of it.
 
 

Re: Previous Dress Code

From: Artemis

Date: 09 Nov 1997

An interesting idea, but we have never heard that a written dress code ever existed before at any of the three high schools in the district, (Santa Barbara HS, San Marcos HS and Dos Pueblos HS.)

We know that any unwritten dress code policy that has been used in these schools for many years has been much less strict than the new, written code that was recently enacted. The new code was enacted in August, 97. But after many students and parents protested, the board said violators will not be cited and punished until January, 98. So, as of now, students are dressing as usual, As you can see by looking around each campus in the district, many students would be in violation of the new code. But there does not seem to be any student or school disruption of any kind caused by such clothing, designs, etc.

Any disruption seems to be entirely in the minds of the board members, administrators and perhaps a few teachers.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: Previous Dress Code

From: Ron

Date: 21 Dec 1997

When I went to SBHS the dress/appearance code, in general, was:

Boys: hair: could not touch the collar, go over the ears or touch the eyebrows. shirts: if they had tails - had to be tucked in; had to have a collar - no t-shirts allowed as outer garment - this was beginning to change as designer type t-shirts came onto the market pants: if they had belt loops - has to wear a belt, blue jeans were frowned upon - no shorts allowed footwear: had to wear socks, whether wearing sandals or shoes - white socks were discouraged

Girls: had to wear a dress or skirt, which had to touch the floor if you knelt on the floor - no pants or shorts allowed .

The dress code was changing dramatically in the late 60's/early 70's. Could this have something to do with the dramatic decline is SAT/ACT scores at the same time? Not so much the distraction of shorts, tank tops, etc but maybe just the lowering of the level of self-discipline expected of students.
 
 
 
 

Re: Previous Dress Code

From: Mencken

Date: 26 Dec 1997

Ron from Alaska, thanks for your post. It sounds like you were a SBHS student in the 50's or early 60's. It is interesting to have your historical viewpoint.

At the school board meeting where the new dress code was passed, one of the board members argued that the new code is "very liberal" compared to the strict school dress codes when she was a girl. She mentioned the fact that girls had to wear dresses or skirts, and the length had to be below the knee.

One speaker at the meeting was a father of a girl student. He is now on the faculty at UCSB. He told the board that he attended high school during the late 60's and dressed like a hippie with long hair and hippie clothes. He said he had straight A grades and challenged the Board's reasoning that strict school dress codes can have a significant influence on academic achievement.

The effect of a high school dress code on SAT scores is highly questionable. The University of California did not adopt the SAT until 1968, a time of intense and sometimes violent social change when most students dressed like hippies and engaged in behavior that shocked their elders. However, that generation of students managed to succeed academically and successfully enter adult life. Those students are now in their 40’s and 50’s and have had, and still have, the greatest impact on every aspect of American life. Can it be reasonably argued that American life today would be better if those students in the late 60’s and early seventies would have been subjected to the most strict forms of school discipline? If the boys had been made to cut their hair and shave there beards, and the girls made to give up their miniskirts and forced to wear bras, would the students of that generation have been more successful in adult life? Would American life be somehow better today? Such an argument cannot reasonably be made. The freedom and vitality of American life today, in business, academics, the arts, the sciences, is a direct result of the personal freedom and dynamic forms of expression fought for by students.

There are serious problems in public education and at SBHS. But we do not believe the school board’s romantic nostalgia about campus life in the 1950’s provides an answer.

Thanks for your post and we hope you post again.
 
 
 
 

Re: Student Journalist accosted by SBHS security guard!

From: Voltaire

Date: 23 Nov 1997

Last week a journalism student at Santa Barbara High School was allegedly accosted on campus by a school security guard.

The student was taking photos of the campus for the journalism class. When the student took a picture of the security guard, who was in a public area, the guard allegedly became enraged and forced the student to take the film out of the camera and destroy the entire roll by exposing it to sunlight.

This was obviously a gross abuse of authority by the security guard. The guard is a "public figure" representing the school administration and was on duty in an open, public place on campus. There is no "expectation of privacy" by the guard under such circumstances. The guard had no legal power to violate the student’s legal rights by demanding that the film be destroyed.

If this had been done by a student instead of a guard, it would be seen by the school administration as an act of vandalism.

This incident raises important questions. What training are school security guards receiving concerning the constitutional rights of students? What is the policy of the school administration and school board concerning the protection of the constitutional rights of all persons on campus? As the United States Supreme Court has said, students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.
 
 
 
 

From: Ron from Alaska

Date: 21 Dec 1997

I hope that the involved guard was properly reprimanded for this act - if it actually occured.

What really bothers about this though is that things have gotten so bad that a guard is needed at my alma mater. Hope it doesn't get to that here in the arctic.
 
 
 
 

Re: Student Journalist accosted by SBHS security guard

From: Rotifer

Date: 03 Jan 1998

I don't think things are "so bad" that they need security gaurds. (They don't do anything anyway). They probably just have them so they won't get sued. Although, they probably will get sued someday anyway.
 
 
 
 

Outrage!

From: A most vehement supporter of the school dress code!

Date: 23 Nov 1997

I saw the dress code flyers which you posted on campus and decided to see your web site. I am so outraged and disgusted I am nearly overcome! You seem to think you are very clever putting "clouds" on the background of your web pages, but I see through your disgusting little game. I have examined your "clouds" with a powerful magnifying glass and my unconscious mind has been overwhelmed by the vile, subliminal messages you have hidden there! Subliminal images resembling girls in spaghetti strap dresses being ravaged by boys in gang attire! Subliminal images of girls dressed in shorts above mid-thigh, strutting! Hidden, inflammatory designs promoting sex and drugs! And sickening, subliminal messages which force people to think about depraved perversions! My mind is reeling! This is exactly why we demanded the school board pass the dress code! You students are impressionable, easily disrupted and cannot be trusted. I am going to call the school board members again and demand that they take severe action immediately!
 
 

Re: Outrage!

From: gareth

Date: 04 Dec 1997

Boy oh boy, do you have a mental problem. First, why would we do a thing like that, second, why would you take the time to do that, third, you disgust me by suggesting that the dress code was a good idea! a GOOD one! here is why it isnt a good one. it does two things: it lessens peoples freedom, and the most important of all, IT ALLOWS TEACHERS TO DECIDE

WHAT IS INFLAMMATORY! If i was a teacher on campus, i could get YOU suspended for wearing a red shirt, since it was "inflammatory" or maybe the color of your binder was "inflammatory" to me so you can go ahead and take your slimy, pus oozing dress code and shove it up your a$$! Wait a sec, was that the dress code, or one of Leland's popped pimples? ahh! icant tell! stop messing with my mind! i will now explain what i just said in small, easily understood words that your dmaned feeble brain will understand: DIE!
 
 

Re: Outrage!

From: Koik

Date: 04 Dec 1997

Now now silly student, lets not get rowdy! Stay calm. Take a nap or a valium (or both.)
 
 

Re: Outrage!

From: gareth

Date: 05 Dec 1997

I may be silly, i may be a student, but that doesnt mean i need a nap or valium. If anyone here needs some mood modifing drug, it is the guy who posted the fist post. What sort of moron would take the time to stare at a computer graphic with a magnifying glass?
 
 

Re: Outrage!

From: van Zip

Date: 09 Dec 1997

Before we consider the absurdity of gareth's posts we must first consider how it came to pass that some exalted pedagogues have been engaged for years in the enterprise of gassing his young cranium with effluvia yet have utterly failed to provide him with the ability to recognize the technique of mocking satire.
 
 
 
 

From: Nikita and Debbie

Date: 17 Feb 1998

We think that school dress codes and uniforms are stripping our right of freedom of expression.The first amendment clearlystates that we as a United States citezen, have the right to express ourselves including the way we dress. Then why areteachers, principals and parents taking that right away from us? What ever happened to individuality and independence? We both believe that school dress codes and uniforms are simply ridiculous and expensive. We think that the schools use gang activities as one big excuse. The fact that everyone dresses alike is not going to change anything. It may even create more problems within the schools. For those students who attend to public schools and have to wear uniforms or follow strict dress codes, use your rights to protest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
 
 
 

Drug sniffing dogs on campus
 
 

From: zeezee

Date: 01 Aug 1998

Time: 11:53:05

Remote Name: 206.173.173.186
 
 

Comments
 
 

High schools in Los Angeles want to search students and their backbacks, etc, with drug sniffing dogs.
 
 

What's next?? Body x-rays?? Full body cavity searches????
 
 
 
 

Here's the story from the Los Angeles Times on August 1, 1998:
 
 
 
 

"Youth Opinion: Sniffing Out Drugs at Venice High
 
 

The principal of Venice High School and a parent committee will seek the school board's approval on Tuesday for a one-year pilot program to use drug-sniffing dogs.
 
 

While the golden retrievers or Labradors will be brought on campus primarily to sniff for illegal drugs in students' book bags and lockers, the dogs also pick up the scent of gunpowder.
 
 

Several other school districts throughout the state have implemented similar programs.
 
 

High school students and Bud Jacobs, principal at Venice High School, spoke about the proposed program with MARY REESE BOYKIN.
 
 

* * * JASON HOCKENBURY 16, sophomore, Venice High School: There are more important concerns at Venice High School than drugs. Last year, there was a stabbing on campus. There have been shootings near the campus. I don't understand why so much attention is given to drugs when many students fear for their lives. I have always hated people searching me or my things. Last school year, there were random searches with metal detectors. If security had any suspicions, they would search your pockets. The use of dogs invades students' privacy. But administrators must do what they have to do to keep drugs out of school. I think this program will work because students will be afraid to bring drugs to school. It may completely

stop drug use at school.
 
 

* * * ERDOLO EROMO 17, senior, Crenshaw High School: It's all about respect. If students don't respect authority, then school officials have to be more authoritative. So if students cannot be trusted on their own not to bring drugs to school, administrators must take the leadership to make schools drug-free. I think the good thing about using the dogs is that students won't feel harassed by school police officers who search them. While students are in class, the dogs can sniff the lockers. But I think this program will work because students will think twice before bringing drugs on campus. They won't hold drugs for friends. The clear message to students is that they can't just walk on campus and smoke marijuana at nutrition break.
 
 

* * * LISA HILL 17, senior, Calabasas High School, Las Virgenes school district: If a drug or gun problem exists, it should be controlled in some way. But I think that the use of drug-sniffing dogs is a violation of students' civil rights. At Calabasas High, random classes were selected for the drug-sniffing. The kids were called out of classes as the dogs sniffed book bags. The dogs also sniffed the lockers and the parking lot. Any drugs in a book bag, including certain medications, were detected by the dogs and caused concern. The sniffing was an invasion into students' personal lives. If drugs are a serious problem on a school campus--destroying the learning environment, endangering everyone, making students feel nervous about attending

school--some drastic action must be taken. In a situation like that, the rights of the majority to have a safe learning environment are more important than for a majority of students not to be searched. But at Calabasas High, I don't feel that there is a drug or weapon problem, or maybe just in isolated cases. The magnitude of the drug-sniffing searches was greater than the magnitude of the drug problem. The use of drug-sniffing dogs was, therefore, a violation of students' civil rights.
 
 

* * * RONALD GONZALEZ 17, senior, Venice High School: Having the dogs sniff for drugs is going to be great. I think that it helps sometimes to check randomly for drugs and guns. Students who use drugs may at least stop using them at school. Possibly, there will even be more security on campus. It won't just be the bad students who will be checked, but also the good ones; those who nobody is suspicious of will not get away with having drugs.
 
 

* * * CESAR ALVARADO 16, senior, Los Angeles High School: School is not a prison. Students come to school to learn. Dogs should not be used, but as long as the dogs do not sniff people, then maybe this program will be OK. I have witnessed students bringing drugs to school. Sometimes, the drugs are kept in book bags; other times, in lockers. I think kids bring drugs to school to impress other students, to look cool. Respect for schools has not stopped students from bringing drugs there. That doesn't work. I have seen no other serious method that works. If students know drugs will be sniffed by dogs, they will be afraid to bring drugs to school.
 
 

The Principal's View:
 
 

BUD JACOBS Principal, Venice High School: This is a tough issue because the use of dogs in policing is frequently a negative image. There are seeing-eye dogs and there are police dogs. These golden retrievers and Labradors are going to be our seeing-eye dogs--enabling us to see what may be there that we aren't now seeing. The dogs can also detect gunpowder. No other school in the LAUSD is willing, like Venice High, to be first to try this. The plan calls for two dogs to be on campus for one-half day visits, scheduled randomly. We have a 29-acre campus. Drug-sniffing dogs are used at some airports. Shouldn't

schools be as safe as airports? Forty schools in California use this program. Culver City, La Mirada, Monterey and Temple City are among them. The drug-sniffing dogs are effective as a deterrent. We don't have a big drug problem; we are trying to keep a small problem from getting bigger. We want to move from zero tolerance to zero presence. That's it. We want to make sure that there are no drugs on campus. As principal, I plan to ensure that students' rights are not violated by making sure that students are properly informed. There will be an assembly with students, information will be sent to parents, signs will be

posted on campus. The dogs do not sniff children. They sniff book bags, lockers, cars, desks. Their purpose is to detect. The dogs begin the process. School officials investigate further." Copyright 1998 Los Angeles Times.
 
 
 
 

This principal admits they don't have a big drug problem. But he wants to subject every student to these searches anyway.
 
 

Using his reasoning, why not put every student on a conveyor belt when they come to school and pass them through an x-ray machine?
 
 

This is another example of an over-reaction which violates the rights of all students in an attempt to catch a few students who are breaking the law.
 
 
 
 

Police stops
 
 

From: vortex

Date: 02 Aug 1998

Time: 13:47:17

Remote Name: 206.173.173.63
 
 

Comments
 
 

What do you need to remember if you are stopped or busted by the police??? Either on or off campus???
 
 

Check out the advice on the ACLU bust card. You can copy the bust card and carry it in your wallet.
 
 

http://www.aclu.org/library/bustcard.html
 
 
 
 
 

Bill Gates needed an ACLU bust card.

From: mozilla

Date: 15 Aug 1998

Time: 12:10:48

Remote Name: 206.173.172.200

Comments:
 

From the Associated Press:
 

Friday August 14 4:19 PM EDT
 
 

Gates Sped Along Two Highways
 
 

NEW YORK (AP) - The information superhighway is apparently not the only place where Bill Gates has been pulled over on

suspicion of speeding.
 
 

A police mug shot of Gates from a 1977 arrest for bad driving appears on the cover of the September issue of Brill's Content

magazine. The photo shows a nerdy-looking Gates with his boyish smile, tinted glasses and shaggy hair nearly covering his

ears.
 
 

The photo has drawn attention to a driving record that includes two arrests in New Mexico in the 1970s and one in California

in 1989.
 
 

The 42-year-old Microsoft chairman said he was 21 when the photo was taken.
 
 

Gates was arrested in 1975 for speeding and driving without a license, and in 1977 for running a stop sign and driving without

a license, Albuquerque police said. He was arrested again in 1989 in California on suspicion of drunken driving, a charge that

was later reduced.
 
 

Gates first saw it when representatives of the city of Albuquerque asked if they could release it to Brill's Content, which had

requested it, said Dean Katz, a Microsoft spokesman.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Post your own comments and opinions in the Student Rights Forum. If you came here from a page with frames, then right click and open it in a new, full browser window.
 
 

To read more past posts, please see Past Posts, Volume 1

Also, please visit the page of interesting posts on the Santa Barbara California school dress code protest.

Or, go to the Student Rights Page or the Dress Code Information Page
 

Thanks for visiting.