Facts of the case
The case for the judicial verdict is concerned about an incident in which an 18-year-old boy displayed a large banner with the inscription “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” (Law Center: Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Case Limits Student Rights). This was seen by the school authorities to be an allusion to the promotion of illegal drugs (marijuana). This happened during a school-sponsored televised event to mark the occasion of a relay of Olympic torch passing through Atlanta City during 2002. The school principal, Deborah Morse asked the student to remove the allegedly offending banner, but apparently, he refused. This prompted the principal to remove the banner and impose a 10-day suspension on him. This was later reduced to 8 days which the boy had served.
According to “Juneau School Board Policy No. 5520 states: “The Board specifically prohibits any assembly or public expression that… advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors….” Id., at 53a. In addition, Juneau School Board Policy No. 5850 subjects “[p]upils who participate in approved social events and class trips” to the same student conduct rules that apply during the regular school program. Id., at 58a.” (Morse, et al, 3).
It is seen that the schools follow disciplinary policies, it is believed that this banner obliquely refers to the use of drugs, which is against the policies of this school.
The pupil later filed a suit against his suspension and claimed damages and reversal of suspension claiming that it was against his First Amendment rights.
Issues
The main issue here is whether the school principal was well within her rights to discipline the boy in the manner which she did.
Another issue is whether the defendant was well within his rights to claim material compensation for the alleged wrongdoing by Morse.
This jury thinks that what she did was not fully plausible. Her action of removing the banner was correct and in terms of the best health interests of the student community, even if the banner did not specifically speak about drugs, but only alluded to it.
However, she was not correct in disciplining the student, since there is nothing to suggest that a mere oblique reference to illegal drugs could create such a furor. To establish guilt that justifies abstinences from school for 8 days needs to be made on stronger evidence of wrongdoing, not condone either by a banner or questionable behavior by the pupil.
Moreover, it has to be established that his conduct has instigated people to use the banned drug seeing the banner. Moreover, the pupil had insisted during the trial that he had meant the banner for diverting the attention of the Television media, and “that the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras.” (Morse, et al, 6). There are no reasons to doubt the veracity of his testimony. He has been charged with promoting the use of illegal drugs, a fact that he may have, or may not have known while using the banner.
In most likelihood, and considering his disciplined record, he was aware of the meaning of the words inscribed in the banner “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” But he could not gauge that his apparently innocent display could create a public furor and land him in a predicament such as this.
Arguments
As in any contentious and controversial matter, it is needed to take cognizance of both sides of the case. In this case, the matter is in terms of the notion of whether the banner could be seen in a larger context of a young man making use of a public occasion to intentionally publicize the use of illicit drugs. (Marijuana), since this is what most people would construe from the banner.
Again, the second issue would be whether the act of the petitioner in destroying the banner and initiating action against the student, acting on the spur of the moment, was in harmony with the situation.
There is no doubt that the principal had acted within her jurisdiction in removing the banner, but whether it was necessary for her to punish the pupil the way she did needs to be decided.
It is necessary to invoke the case of Tinker et al. v. Des Moines393 US 503 (1968) in. which it was opined that “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” (Tinker et al.v Des Moines Independent Community School District et al).
Again, in the case of Burnside v. Byars 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966), Walter Gewin, J, opined that schools cannot infringe on their students’ right to free and unrestricted expression as guaranteed to them under the First Amendment to the Constitution, where the exercise of such rights in the school “buildings and schoolrooms do not materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” (Speech: Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966)).
Verdict
After careful analysis and deliberation on all facets of the case placed by the petitioners, the respondents, the deposition made by the various witnesses, and the conduct of its proceedings, the Court is required to put forth its verdict, keeping in view the bearing this case may have on later cases and the setting of legal precedents, and also the course of law circumscribing such issues.
This Court is of the considered opinion that it was well within Juneau School Board policies and procedures to actively discourage the use or abuse of illegal drugs among its student community, including aspects that could even hint, or suggest the promotion of drugs of this kind blatantly, but without male fide intentions on the part of the respondent, Frederick. This Court believes that although Frederick may have been aware of the close association between the banner and drugs, he was not aware of the possible outcome or implications that this would cause in the community.
Held, while the pulling down and destruction of the banner may not have been ultra vires, on the part of Deborah Morse, her subsequent conduct of enforcing discipline is not passable under legal scrutiny. This is primarily because she was in no position to assess, at that point of time and perspective, the implications of her actions, and she had been so carried away in her action that, for a moment, she was devoid of her reasoning and hence inflicted admonition and punishment to Frederick, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is untenable and begging redressal.
Held, reverses the verdict of the earlier court and determines that further legal proceedings against the respondent, Frederick may be closed, henceforth.
This court also orders that reasonable court fees and expenses, as deemed necessary and fixed by this Court be herewith provided to the respondent.
This Court also takes this opportunity to consider the perspective of school authorities vis-à-vis its student community. While the highest standards of care and conduct are expected from the student community, it is also necessary that this enforcement does go overboard, and in their innate commitment and desire to maintain discipline, school authorities also need to keep aware of realities and societal settings, and not visualize, or believe that every little act of exuberance, or indulgence, and outside the scope of studies, need to be actively regulated, disciplined and proscribed in each and every case.
This, however, does not imply that regulated behavior is taboo, since discipline is a hallmark of future success, especially among the student communities; it is necessary that disciplinary actions need to consider the larger framework of human existence and future and subserves individual interests.
Works Cited
Law Center: Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Case Limits Student Rights. 2007. Web.
Morse, et al. Supreme Court of the United States. 2007. Web.
Tinker et al.v Des Moines Independent Community School District et al. Supreme Court of the United States. 1969. 2008. Web.
Speech: Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966). First Amendment Schools. 2006. Web.