HOME
your socialist home on the internet
ABOUT US
who we are, our politics, and what we do
GET ACTIVE!
joining ysa, getting active locally, making a difference
NEWS & VIEWS
articles, fliers, statements and opinions
THEORY
what is socialism, reading lists and study guides
CONTACT US
our email, snail mail, phone number and club directory
LINKS
socialist, youth, activist, labor, feminist, anti-racist, and other important sites
WHAT'S NEW
listing of what's been recently added
free expression in the schools
What you are about to read is a true story. In a school where half the student body is Latino, a sixth grade teacher assigned a book to her students called “Tommy Stands Alone.” The book is a story about a young boy named Tommy. It describes this young boy’s realization that he is gay, and the ensuing ostracism that he has to endure once word gets out.
An explosive controversy erupts when a parent complains to the school administration about their child being asked to read “immoral” materials. As a result the administration pulls the book from the class. A response not uncommon in America’s school systems, and one that would have received little notice if fate hadn’t stepped in.
It just so happened that the author of “Tommy Stands Alone,” Gloria Velasquez, was scheduled to speak at the school where this happened only days after the book was pulled. Upon arriving at the school to give her scheduled talk, Miss Velasquez was informed by the school’s principal that she would not be allowed to mention her book in her talk, or the words “gay” or “homosexual,” despite the fact that her speaking engagement was part of a tour to promote her book and the importance of education in the Latino community. Her reaction was to turn her talk into a speech against censorship.
Here is another true story, this one in Dallas, Texas back in 1996. There a high school sponsored a public access TV program put on by students called “Getting Personal”. In December of that year the students decided to do an interview of a Transvestite as part of a discussion about how gays were treated in today’s society.
The students got the approval of the faculty advisor assigned by the school to the project, and the show went to air. Three minutes into the program though the administration pulled the plug and canceled the show, claiming “maybe there was a constituency out there that wasn’t prepared maturely for accepting this information.”
Despite protests from students and teachers, the rest of the show never aired, and it would be two months before “Getting Personal” returned to public access, and only after a new set of guidelines were drawn up barring any topic that involved potential controversy. Programs discussing how to make french toast and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are what followed.
The two stories above are examples of censorship and the restriction of free expression in the schools. One deals with teachers’ right to select curriculum for their classes, and the other with students’ right to discuss issues of concern to them through the school press.
Despite America’s claim, at least on paper, that it guarantees and protects the right of its citizens to freely express themselves, the reality within this nation’s school system is about as far away from this as one can get. Again and again battles have erupted - and are erupting - over the student press, symbolic and creative expression, issues concerning curriculum and the right to assemble.
With the growing radicalization that is taking place in the world today, especially among young people, it’s important for us to take a serious look at issues such as free expression of ideas in the schools. It’s not only instructive to learn what gains have been won around such issues (and are thus available for us to use in our struggles), but also to see how far we have to go and identify concrete issues to organize around. Towards that end, I’d like to look at some past examples of struggles around free expression in the schools that have set precedents, as well as what the current laws relating to the issue.
The first example deals with a teacher’s right to criticize the administration of a school, and its policies, off of school grounds. A high school English teacher was fired for criticizing the administration of the school he worked for. The teacher, Marvin Pickering, had the view that the school had a strong bias in favor of the athletic department, and that this was demonstrated by excessive spending in this area at the expense of other departments. He also felt that the administration, in general, wielded unnecessary, and even cruel, control over teachers and what they taught and did in the classroom.
Mr. Pickering decided that he had an obligation to voice these concerns, and choose to voice them in the pages of the local press by writing a letter to the editor. The letter was a rather scathing one that told things exactly as they were, describing the conditions teachers were working under as “totalitarian” and stating that the school districts tax payers were being taken “to the cleaners”. He hoped it would get the attention of parents and community members. However, it also got the attention of the school’s administration, who responded by firing him.
Mr. Pickering ended up suing the school to get his job back, as well as compensation, and though he won both, along with a court decision that stated teachers and students could criticize their administrators, it also emphasized that there were limits to this right. These limits were established in the Scoville vs. Board of Education case, which ruled that “freedom of speech includes the right to criticize and protest school policies” but in a “non-disruptive manner”, defining this as the absence “of ‘fighting words’ or the abuse of superiors with profane and vulgar speech.”
The second example I’d like to give deals with the issue of free speech and the student press again. In Clinton, Mississippi a student submitted an article to his school’s newspaper dealing with homophobia. It was rejected by the administration on the grounds that the school district was predominantly conservative Christians, and that an article on such a topic would stir up controversy.
The student, with the support of his mother, protested, and got the article printed in the local newspaper, along with an explanation of the circumstances surrounding it. The article did in fact generate a lot of responses, some supporting the school on the grounds that homosexuality was “an abomination to God”, and some supporting the student for having the courage to state his views. The school though maintained its right to deny articles, and increased the censorship on the student newspaper by assigning a faculty adviser to pick all editorial topics.
The school was able to claim legal precedent for its actions, and as I’m sure almost any high student who reads this can verify, it’s a stance that is near universal. The legal precedent comes from the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier. In this case students had written two articles for their school’s paper, “The Spectrum”, dealing with how pregnancy and divorce effect students. The principal blocked the articles, and after a series of court battles, it was put before the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the administration. It said, “A school may in its capacity as publisher of a school newspaper or producer of a school newspaper or producer of a school play disassociate itself not only from speech that would substantially interfere with its work or impinge on the rights of other students, but also from speech that is, for example, ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased, prejudiced, vulgar, profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences.” A description that obviously leaves nothing safe from administration censorship.
The Supreme Court handed down this ruling in 1988. Prior to that, in 1986, the case of Bethel School District No.403 vs. Fraser had stated that a school had the right to “establish standards of civic and mature conduct.” This ruling, combined with the Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier ruling, added up to a serious attack on students’ rights to free speech and expression, rights which had been won (though not universally respected) during the protest movements of the 1960s and 70s. For example, mass opposition to the war in Vietnam, which extended into the high schools, and resulted in a Supreme Court decision in 1969 defending a student’s right to wear an armband in protest against the war (Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District).
According to the courts, students and teachers can say and do what they want within guidelines set by the administration to supposedly guard against interference and disruption of discipline and learning. These restrictions that set parameters on discussion of ideas and expression are often wholly illegitimate though.
The particular debate concerning a teacher’s right to free expression largely revolves around to what extent a teacher can express their particular viewpoint. Most challenges to teachers’ rights to free expression arise when parents complain about materials their children are exposed to. In the last decade or so Christian fundamentalists in particular have challenged teachers (and students) over books, evolution, sex education and multicultural education because they challenge the world view that is laid out in the Bible.
Opponents of students’ rights to free expression often present patronizing arguments regarding when a child is competent enough to be treated as an adult. Advocates of limiting student expression argue that if left to themselves young people inevitably fall into unruly and disruptive behaviors, and that administrators are there to do just that, administer young people.
As socialists we believe it is essential to defend and fight for the right of free expression for students and teachers. Education is enhanced, not disrupted, by the raising of alternative ideas, the expression of unique viewpoints and allowing for the free development of ideas and expression. Any restriction upon free expression in the schools, be it in the form of dress codes or plain and simple censorship, hurts students and teachers, and indirectly all working people. Denial of such basic rights warps our development, limits our horizons and handicaps our ability to challenge the status quo and raise alternative ideas and notions.
The very existence of public schools is due to a huge struggle waged by working people to create places where their children can learn about the world around them, in all of its diverse beauty, and come away with the ability to think and make decisions in an educated way. Prior to public schools being won, the only education options out there were private schools that were either too expensive for working people, or required the religious indoctrination of all who enrolled.
The battles that have been waged over free expression in the schools have gone both ways in the past century, depending on the balance of power between working people and ruling class. These last two decades have seen an incessant campaign on the part of the ruling class to chip away at the rights of working people on all fronts, including that of students and teachers in the schools. But this is a situation that can change, especially if we remember and put into practice the mass action approach that won us public education and our democratic rights in the first place. There are winds of change that are beginning to blow, and with them a new series of struggles are poised to erupt over this and many other issues. Now is a time to take a hard look at our situation, what needs to be done and what sort of society we seek to build. Are we going to accept a 1984ish society where only the ideas and behaviors sanctioned by the ruling class are allowed, or are we going to resist, rise up and make history?
The article above was written by Adam Ritscher, a member of Youth for Socialist Action.
