“The Assembly shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the mob, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government. Matters of repeated grievances” (Amendment 1, US Constitution ).
There has been a spirited debate on many college campuses across the nation about the constitutionally protected right to free speech. The nation’s colleges and universities are, in theory, vital institutions for the growth and nourishment of the critical mind, honest inquiry, individual rights, the core values of liberty, legal equality, and dignity. However, in recent years, many students argue that universities have become hostile to those qualities and studies. Arguing that school administrators should have their rights to speech and expression restricted. Instead of “protecting academic opinions by first cultivating diversity of opinion and culture,” they take away constitutional rights and force predetermined opinions about them. From this debate arises the question of how much control should be exercised in school administrators’ monitoring of student activities, and when the school “transitions” line” begins and the students begin to violate their constitutional rights. The answer lies in balancing legitimate educational goals, the need for Supreme Court Justice Hugh LaFayette Black in the supreme court case Cohen vs. as a point. The commanding black flags should be taken down. Justice Black said that “there is no law that is not a law” and that there is a difference between behavior and speech. The expression, but not the speaking, of words or symbols is an “action” and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. They could also demand the removal of the flags under the protection of supreme court cases Bethel and Hazelwood. In Bethel, the Court granted the right of Washington state public school administrators to discipline the student to give a campaign in a school assembly speech, which I love it was loaded with insinuations. The court stated: “Administrators must have the discretion to punish student speech that violates school rules and tends to interfere with legitimate educational and disciplinary purposes.” In Hazelwood, the Court largely upheld Bethel school administrators’ right to censor a school-run academic paper that covered sensitive subjects, such as a student’s pregnancy and other topics, which the court cited as an “invasion of privacy.” In fact, these two cases grant school administrators far greater ability to restrict the speech of their students than the government has in restricting common public speech, and the Harvard administration could demand the removal of flags such as “bias.” it can be argued that it interferes with legitimate educational and disciplinary purposes.
Of course, if Harvard administrators were to do this, the students would most certainly put back the Tinker vs. Des. Moines, where the court expressly states that “students do not waive their constitutional rights when they enter the school door.” The First Amendment found the right of high school students to wear black armor in a public high school as a form of protest against the Vietnam War. Regulating this symbolic speech could be “close to pure speech” unless it could be banned by school administrators if they could show that it would cause substantial disruption to the educational mission. The students would certainly argue that the display of flags is “close to pure speech” and therefore protected under the First Amendment.
At this point, the administration will probably bring what Professor Linder calls a “Categorical Approach.” This approach is based on the Supreme Court case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which brings terror. a speech directed to a certain group of people, which invites the trained to “fighting words”, and that a person engaged in such a speech can be punished if “… by his very statement he causes injury or incites an immediate breach of the peace”. The administration could say that the display of the Confederate flag (and definitely the swastika) could instigate an immediate breach of the peace. Certain types of speech (i.e. obscenity and “hate words” or “fighting words”) seem to fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment.
But surely our Harvard students would not give up so easily. And if they did, they wouldn’t be at Harvard in the first place. They quote the R.A.V. v. St. Paul, which is challenged to the ordination of St. Paul, which position punishes certain symbols that were “likely to arouse anger, terror, or indignation due to race, religion, or sex.” Robert Victoria, a teenager, was convicted of violating the ordinance after burning a cross in the area of a black family. The Court, in the opinion of Justice Scalia, returned to R. A. V. convinced that the institution without a criminal constitution is based on some harmful expression (especially referring to national and religious minorities) and not other harmful expressions (which were aimed at other defenseless groups). about the political preferences of legislators. Scalia declares that “fighting words” are not, as Chaplinsky suggested, a class of speech entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment.
So Harvard administrators are back where they started. They can demand the removal of flags; they have ample support from previous Supreme Court cases to do so. But that would likely make the demonstration and demand by the students for their First Amendment rights. Administrators could hang banners, for there are also a wide range of reasons why students can display banners in support of dismissal. But Bok, in his commentary, offers a solution to the appeal on the “constitutional” issue. He argues that displaying the flags falls within the rights of students defined in the First Amendment, and that for students to remove the flags, the best practice would be to ignore it. Bok goes on to say, “…the students would have little reason to create such displays and quickly abandon them.” Both of these pla- lacks. Those who depend on such symbols may continue, and those who stumble upon such symbols may choose to ignore them and, according to Bok, find that such acts will soon be abandoned. Of course, if the students hanging the banners did not leave “such displays”, then what did the administrators? Bok gives an answer to him by adding: “If neglecting such things cannot be done, the wisest course would be to converse with the authors, seeking to educate and persuade rather than ridicule or frighten, recognizing that only persuasion will have an everlasting, beneficial effect.”
Bok makes a very plausible argument for using both logos and ethos effectively enough to articulate their position. He writes very sensitively, using not harsh words and opinions to prove his point. Is it correct? Well, that’s for Harvard administrators to decide. What is certain, however, is that in the eyes of the law there is nothing, no right or wrong decision. Both cases are different where the individual interest is freely expressed, as opposed to the interest of the government to restrict the speech in question, and justice is dealt with in the interest. There is a dire need for a detailed and articulate amendment-protected statute that balances legitimate objections to institutions, the need for discipline of school administrators, and the First Amendment values that guarantee students’ free speech rights. Until that happens, the world of nations and college administrators and students are fighting for their rights. guaranteed in the First Amendment.
References
Bok, Derek. “Protecting freedom of speech on campus.” Linder, Douglas. First Amendment Law. Course home page. Department of Canon Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City. 13 Dec 2005 http://www.law.umkc.edu
