{"product_id":"let-the-students-speak-isbn-9780807044544","title":"Let the Students Speak!","description":"From a trusted scholar and powerful story teller, an accessible and lively history of free speech, for and about students.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003ci\u003eLet the Students Speak!\u003c\/i\u003e details the rich history and growth of the First Amendment in public schools, from the early nineteenth-century's failed student free-expression claims to the development of protection for students by the U.S. Supreme Court. David Hudson brings this history vividly alive by drawing from interviews with key student litigants in famous cases, including John Tinker of \u003ci\u003eTinker v. Des Moines Independent School District\u003c\/i\u003e and Joe Frederick of the \"Bong Hits 4 Jesus\" case, \u003ci\u003eMorse v. Frederick\u003c\/i\u003e. He goes on to discuss the raging free-speech controversies in public schools today, including dress codes and uniforms, cyberbullying, and the regulation of any violent-themed expression in a post-Columbine and Virginia Tech environment. This book should be required reading for students, teachers, and school administrators alike.\u003cb\u003eEditor’s Note\u003c\/b\u003e (Christopher Finan)\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003eIntroduction\u003c\/b\u003e \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e1\u003c\/b\u003e No Rights for Students \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e2\u003c\/b\u003e The “Fixed Star” \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e3\u003c\/b\u003e Buttons and Armbands \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e4\u003c\/b\u003e A New Era \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e5\u003c\/b\u003e Supreme Retractions \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e6\u003c\/b\u003e Bong Hits \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e7\u003c\/b\u003e Columbine \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c\/b\u003e The Dress Debate \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c\/b\u003e The New Frontier \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003eConclusion\u003c\/b\u003e The Fragile Future \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Acknowledgments \u003cbr\u003e Notes \u003cbr\u003e Index of Cases“The lack of respect for student  rights by overzealous school administrators is clearly evident in\u003ci\u003e\u003ci\u003e Let the Students  Speak\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e. This book is a must-read for free speech  enthusiasts, especially when it comes to our future  generations.”—\u003ci\u003eIndependent Register \u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“This is an extraordinarily valuable book on the history of free speech in US  schools.”—\u003ci\u003eCHOICE\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“An interesting and accessible read  for upper high school and beyond, the book will appeal to educators, high school  students, and parents.”—\u003ci\u003eLibrary Journal\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Skillfully  traces the threads of court opinion and student challenges that have shaped our  understanding of students’ freedom to express themselves. Young readers with an  interest in law will find Hudson’s book quite readable…\"—\u003ci\u003eVOYA (Voice of Youth Advocates)\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\"David  Hudson's \u003ci\u003eLet the Students Speak\u003c\/i\u003e reflects a masterful blending of law and  public policy as it focuses on key issues of free speech in the secondary school  context. It should prove as useful and timely for First Amendment lawyers as for  school administrators and the broader community, and of course for students and  the groups in which they engage. Building on an impressive understanding of  where the law has taken us in this field, Hudson wisely warns of the regrettable impact  of government censorship upon far too many outspoken students and the messages  they seek to convey.\"-Robert  M. O'Neil, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free  Expression\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“We  too often forget that students are also citizens, with the full protection of  the Bill of Rights. David Hudson’s  authoritative history chronicles the key battles to protect students’ rights,  detailing pivotal decisions and controversies in a succinct and compelling  manner.”—Ken  Paulson, President and CEO, First Amendment Center\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e “In  \u003ci\u003eLet the Students Speak!\u003c\/i\u003e,  David Hudson brings to life the  riveting stories of Pearl Pugsley, Lillian and William Gobitis, Mary Beth and  John Tinker and many other young people who challenged schools' efforts to  punish their speech. Because it explains - in very accessible terms - the human  and legal implications of these cases, this important and timely work is an  extremely valuable read for anyone interested in the First Amendment, or in  education matters generally.”—Helen  Norton, Associate Professor, University of Colorado School of Law\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e “I  have profitably read many of David  Hudson’s books, and this is among the best. The book is an  erudite but engaging study of key cases that involve student speech and  speech-related conduct that will prove especially fascinating to high school and  college students. The book would make a wonderful supplement to classes studying  the First Amendment and an excellent resource for teachers and school  administrators seeking to grasp the nuances of student speech.”—Dr. John R. Vile, Professor of Political Science and Dean, University Honors  College at Middle  Tennessee University, author of \u003ci\u003eEssential Supreme Court Decisions\u003c\/i\u003e \u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e “Through  his work as a scholar with the First Amendment Center, David L. Hudson, Jr. has  intimately familiarized himself not only with leading U.S. Supreme Court cases,  many of whose participants he has personally interviewed, relative to student  speech, but also with some of their obscure state and lower federal court  precedents, all of which he skillfully weaves into his narrative. Although  clearly aware of the importance of student speech, Hudson also highlights the  dangers of “true threats” and “substantial disruption” that such speech can  sometimes pose. There is no better book on student speech.”—Dr. John R. Vile, Professor of Political Science and Dean, University Honors  College at Middle  Tennessee University, author of \u003ci\u003eEssential Supreme Court Decisions\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cb\u003eDavid L. Hudson, Jr.\u003c\/b\u003e is a First Amendment Scholar with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. He teaches at Vanderbilt Law School and Nashville School of Law. His articles have been published in the \u003ci\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c\/i\u003e,\u003ci\u003e ABA Journal\u003c\/i\u003e, and \u003ci\u003eTennessee Bar Journal\u003c\/i\u003e. He is a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association and a graduate of Duke and Vanderbilt Law School.\u003cb\u003eChapter 6 \u003cbr\u003e Bong Hits\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e After the 1988 \u003ci\u003eHazelwood \u003c\/i\u003edecision, the U.S. Supreme Court did  not take another pure student free expression case for nearly twenty  years. This meant that a trio of First Amendment student speech cases  governed American jurisprudence for almost two decades—\u003ci\u003eTinker, Fraser, \u003c\/i\u003eand \u003ci\u003eHazelwood. Hazelwood \u003c\/i\u003eapplied  to school-sponsored student speech. Thus, a student play, many student  newspapers (that weren’t considered public forums), the school’s mascot,  or the content of the school’s curriculum could be regulated by school  officials if they had a legitimate educational, or pedagogical, reason.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eFraser \u003c\/i\u003eapplied to student speech that was considered vulgar,  lewd, or plainly offensive. There was disagreement among the lower  courts on at least two aspects of \u003ci\u003eFraser. \u003c\/i\u003eFirst, lawyers, school officials, and eventually judges disagreed as to whether \u003ci\u003eFraser \u003c\/i\u003eapplied  to speech outside the school context or whether it applied only to  vulgar and lewd student speech that occurred on school grounds—like  Matthew Fraser’s speech to the school assembly. The other question was  over the reach of the “plainly offensive prong” of \u003ci\u003eFraser\u003c\/i\u003e.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Some schools applied \u003ci\u003eFraser \u003c\/i\u003eto any speech they didn’t like. In  1997, Nicholas Boroff, a student at Van Wert High School in Ohio, wore a  T-shirt picturing the “shock rocker” Marilyn Manson to school. The  T-shirt featured a picture of a three-headed Jesus with the words see no  truth, hear no truth, speak no truth. The back of the shirt featured  the word believe with the letters lie highlighted in red. School  officials deemed Boroff’s shirt to be offensive and to promote values  counterproductive to the educational environment; they suspended him.  Boroff sued in federal court, asserting his First Amendment rights.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Boroff’s attorney, Chris Starkey, contended that school officials could  not punish his client for this T-shirt unless they could show that the  shirt was somehow disruptive of school activities. He also argued that  the shirt was no more offensive than other T-shirts that school  officials allowed. Other students had worn “Slayer” and “MegaDeth”  T-shirts without incident. The reason for the censorship, according to  Boroff, was what the principal had said to him: the shirt offended  people on religious grounds by mocking Jesus.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Both a federal district court and a federal appeals court rejected  Boroff’s lawsuit and ruled in favor of school officials. The U.S. Court  of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in \u003ci\u003eBoroff v. Van Wert Board of Education \u003c\/i\u003e(2000) determined that school officials could prohibit the T-shirt under the \u003ci\u003eFraser \u003c\/i\u003eprecedent because the T-shirt was plainly offensive and promoted disruptive and “demoralizing values.”\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Other courts also applied a broad reading of \u003ci\u003eFraser \u003c\/i\u003eand  determined that public schools could ban the Confederate flag because it  was a “plainly offensive” symbol. Whatever one thinks of Marilyn Manson  or the Confederate flag, if school officials can prohibit any student  expression they classify as offensive or conveying offensive ideas, then  much student speech is at risk.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eTinker \u003c\/i\u003eapplied to most other student speech that was not school sponsored (\u003ci\u003eHazelwood\u003c\/i\u003e) or vulgar or lewd (\u003ci\u003eFraser\u003c\/i\u003e). There were differences and questions about \u003ci\u003eTinker \u003c\/i\u003etoo. In time, more school board attorneys interpreted \u003ci\u003eTinker \u003c\/i\u003enarrowly  as a case about viewpoint discrimination, in which school officials  violated the First Amendment because they singled out a particular  armband associated with a particular viewpoint. That is one reading of \u003ci\u003eTinker, \u003c\/i\u003ebut not the only reading. Others read \u003ci\u003eTinker \u003c\/i\u003emore broadly as protecting a wide swath of student speech.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Even though there may have been questions of application about all  three decisions, the legal landscape in student speech cases remained  relatively stable—at least at the Supreme Court level— for many years.  That changed dramatically with “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” and an interesting  young man from Juneau, Alaska, named Joseph Frederick.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003eAn Unusual Banner\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In January 2002, an eighteen-year-old high school senior named Joseph  Frederick conducted his ultimate “free speech experiment.” When he awoke  that day, Frederick knew the Olympic Torch Relay for the upcoming  Winter Games was scheduled to pass right across from his high school.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Frederick later said that heavy snowfall that day prevented him from  pulling his car out of the driveway and making it to school. Whatever  the truth of that statement, Frederick had resolved to proceed with an  experiment he had been planning. He had become interested in First  Amendment issues during that school year, particularly after he decided  to refuse to stand and salute the American flag or to recite the Pledge  of Allegiance because he had learned about \u003ci\u003eWest   Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette \u003c\/i\u003e(1943). For his act of recalcitrance, a teacher sent Frederick to the assistant principal’s office.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Frederick knew that he had a First Amendment right to refuse to stand  and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Justice Robert H. Jackson  proclaimed such a right in the famous 1943 flag-salute decision when he  wrote: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,  it is that no official high or petty shall prescribe what shall be  orthodox in matters of politics, religion or other matters of public  opinion.”\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e That didn’t stop school officials from lecturing Frederick about the  values of patriotism and love of country. Frederick countered that he  loved his country, particularly the Bill of Rights. He believed students  should possess First Amendment rights. And he wanted to push the  limits.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e “I did test the authority of the school administration on numerous  occasions,” Frederick said in 2009. “I think it’s mostly my nature;  however I was encouraged even more from things I learned in my elective  course American Law. In this course most of the semester was spent on a  project where each student was assigned a landmark case and had to  research it and present it to the class. Then, we would discuss the  meaning of the ruling, and our teacher, Gary Lehnhart, would play  devil’s advocate in classroom debates with us. I liked asking  hypothetical questions a lot.”\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Frederick was determined to test a hypothetical he had developed  concerning students’ freedom of speech. So, on that snowy January day in  2002, he waited as the Olympic Torch Relay passed near where he was  standing on Glacier Avenue, a public street across from his high school,  a spot he had mapped out in advance. Television cameras were there to  broadcast the relay, the precursor to one of the most high profile of  sporting events.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Frederick, with help from fellow students, unveiled his “free speech  experiment”—a fourteen-foot banner featuring a most unusual message  spelled out in duct tape for the world to see: bong hits 4 jesus.  Frederick said that he had seen the message on a snowboard sticker; a  band from New Orleans had that stage name as well. “It was my idea alone  to ‘do something’ during the torch relay,” Frederick recalled. “It’s  hard to say exactly how we made our decision of what to do exactly. My  girlfriend and I decided to make a sign of some sort and there were  quite a few suggestions from different friends before I finally decided  on ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus.’ ” Whatever the origins of the phrase,  Juneau-Douglas  High School principal Deborah Morse was less than  pleased. She marched across the street and ordered the students to drop  the banner. Most quickly complied but Frederick refused. Morse grabbed  the banner from Frederick, confiscated it, and ordered him to come to  her office. His protestations that his actions were protected by the  Bill of Rights and the Constitution fell on deaf ears.\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e Later that day, Frederick waited to see the principal outside her  office. Within a few short hours it was clear that his experiment had  produced an unfavorable result. An assistant principal told Frederick  that the Bill of Rights did not apply in school—not a good portent for a  student waiting to see the principal. Principal Morse then told  Frederick that he had violated school policy and had earned himself a  five-day suspension. She believed that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” encouraged  illegal drug use—a rampant problem in the public school system.  According to Frederick, he responded by quoting the third president of  the United States, Thomas Jefferson—“Speech limited is speech lost.”\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e According to Frederick, Morse did not appreciate the reference to  Jeffersonian principles and increased Frederick’s suspension to ten  days. For her part Morse disputed Frederick’s account of the Thomas  Jefferson quote and the doubling of the suspension. She did acknowledge  that Frederick invoked the First Amendment. Whatever the exact nature of  the conversation, the scenario set the stage for a legal battle that  culminated five years later in \u003ci\u003eMorse v. Frederick, \u003c\/i\u003ea U.S. Supreme Court decision better known as “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”","brand":"Beacon Press","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":46304598786277,"sku":"NP9780807044544","price":18.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9780807044544.jpg?v=1767731335","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/es\/products\/let-the-students-speak-isbn-9780807044544","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}