Add “editor” to the job description of one Chesterfield County High School principal and assistant principal.
For Manchester High School’s October 12 homecoming football game, all recognized school clubs were asked to build a float for a half-time parade and submit a short description about the float as it related to the homecoming theme and club. The theme was “In the jungle,” and the public address announcer was to read the blurbs as each float passed the stands.
The Christian Youth Fellowship entered a float and submitted the following:
“Where do you go when you are lost in the jungle? Go to the one who knows the way — and Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life.’ John 14:6.”
This is what was read:
“Where do you go when you are lost in the jungle? Come to CYF and together we’ll show you the way.”
The Biblical citation was censored without notifying the club or its faculty sponsor, nor was the club given a chance to rephrase it themselves. Subsequently, the principal and assistant principal owned up to the edit job. Some involved, including parents, are asking for an apology from the two because this type of unwarranted and unnecessary big brotherism has gone on there for some time (not that Manchester High School is an exception, by any means).
These may be considered unexpected lessons learned by the Christian Youth Fellowship members. But when a school administration asks its students to go through the time and effort for an elective project, then redefines the club’s self-description, they aren’t proper lessons. The principal and assistant principal could, however, provide a true lesson by apologizing immediately.
The GLBT community does not support this type of censorship. We’ve experienced it ourselves here in Loudoun as you can see from our archive of the school play policy issue. The difference between the GLBT community and the VFF is that we support all free speech rights while the VFF opposes our free speech rights. As a matter of fact, our mere existence has been cast as an infringement on religious liberty and free speech. That spin is quite a stretch, and may explain why a commenter on this blog felt that we are winning.
In an article entitled Taking a Flyer on Free Speech by John Leo in City Journal a lot of good points are raised. I have to admit that, as an administrator, I would have not allowed the girl’s flyers either. My reasoning would have been that the flyers violated a community ethic of mutual respect.
I come into this discussion with the notion that a lot of free discussion can be had if the rules are there to say “don’t hurt each other.” Students should be learning to share their views in a civil environment. Now I find there is much to ponder in the arena of free speech and would rather ponder it awhile. Thomas Jefferson loved the concept, but I believe he had some problems with the press of his day.
Most interesting are Mr. Leo’s thoughts on the Juneau student “Bong Hits for Jesus” case. He writes: “Religious and conservative groups have joined the ACLU and Feminists for Free Expression in defending the Juneau student. In the struggle for free expression, the Left and Right both have much at stake.”
Brief B35 of The Ruthorford Institute states: “The freedom to express a particular opinion, whether it be in speech, in writing, or in any other form and whether it be of a religious or non-religious nature, strikes at the very core of first amendment values… …This right to students’ free expression applies even to speech which addresses controversial topics such as religion, war, homosexuality, and abortion.” Still, Free Speech in Public Schools is a complex issue. While student expression is clearly protected in the realm of presenting ideas, there has always been an understanding that expression may be regulated in the following cases according to Brief B35:
1. Vulgar, Lewd, Obscene, and Plainly Offensive Speech
2. School-Sponsored Speech
3. Speech Which Materially Interferes With Appropriate Discipline
4. Speech Which Invades the Rights of Others
In the case of the school play, it is the concept of school sponsored speech that creates a problem. The student should have the freedom to portray themes such as the football players’ struggle with his identity and present the show in class. When the production is offered to the community, however, it then becomes school sponsored. That would negate the production of an overtly evangelistic production as well. The school needs to maintain a posture of neutrality while allowing students the freedom to express their thoughts. Also it might be advisable to produce some plays in independent theatre groups to avoid any problems of endorsement.
Cigarette advertising would normally be excluded from school plays as smoking is considered dangerous. Likewise the school might want to avoid being seen as promoting potentially risky sexual behavior. Again, a student is free to argue his position in a class discussion but the school would be overstepping its authority to sponsor it. I think this limitation could be overcome if the objectionable material is clearly attributed to its source in the same way websites disclaimer the content of google ads which appear on their site but are not subject to their editorial control at all.
These Guidelines published by The Rutherford Institute may be helpful as we consider the many facets of the free speech issue.
Here are the Guidelines published in Rutherford Institute Brief B35. The link diddn’t copy right before.
Bob K,
Did either the play “Offsides” or the “Biblical citation” violate the Rutherford Institute guideline?
Jonathan,
When clearly presented as student expression they do not.
“…aren’t proper lessons….?” I beg to differ. This event is a supurb illustration in power politics as practiced in government-funded institutions today. The kids got rolled by the administrators since they make the rules. Parents pay the taxes that support the schools, but they cannot influence the ideology that pervades the classroom. Perhaps the most direct remedy is to utilize private, religious or home schools, as available.
School Choice would indeed be an effective remedy. The more administrators have to deal with market forces and funding tied to outcome [a great idea], the less they are likely to act like a monopoly. What if they actually have to compete for students.
What if they actually had to see parents as customers to be satisfied instead of a hinderance to their program?