You’re Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage--You Must be a Member of the Ku Klux Klan
By Jay Sekulow
Townhall.com Columnist
Monday, February 5, 2007
Justin Boone is a senior high school student at Community Schools in Michigan. He contacted our office with a matter of serious constitutional concern. By all accounts, Justin is a first-rate student and wonderful citizen of his school. He is a member of the National Society of High School Scholars, an emergency room volunteer at a local hospital, and will be a student in the Honor Government class next semester. Moreover, to further demonstrate Justin's academic ambitions, he is taking classes in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese at the local Michigan Community College. In short, Justin is a dedicated student and active citizen.
Last semester, Justin was enrolled in a course entitled "Law and Public Speaking." As described in the student handbook, this course aims to “help students understand the legal system in America while given the opportunity to develop oral expression through practice." One of the many purposes of the class is to help students “become more self-confident to function in a free society -- even if they never make a public speech after they leave this course.”
Late last year, Justin and three other students presented their public speaking topic regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. This topic was approved ahead of time by Justin’s teachers. In preparing for and delivering their speeches, Justin and the other members of his group followed and fulfilled each and every guideline provided by their instructors. Justin initially selected the topic in question and served as the moderator for the group. As moderator, Justin introduced the topic and gave a brief summary of the points each member of the speech group was to deliver. Justin presented closing remarks as well.
The students covered the following areas in making their presentation:
1) Religious opposition to same-sex marriage;
2) Political opposition to same-sex marriage; and
3) Scientific evidence as it relates to same-sex marriage.
Despite their hard work, each member of the group received a failing grade for their assignment. Other than brief notes sketched out by the teachers on evaluation forms, Justin was not presented with any details or reasons as to why he and the other members of his group received an “F” for their presentation. The day after the presentation, Justin met with one of his teachers regarding an assignment unrelated to the same-sex marriage issue; however, the teacher brought up the previous presentation on the same-sex marriage issue and told Justin that he “reminded” him “of the Ku Klux Klan.” This comment was made in the presence of other students in the classroom. Later that same day, during the Law and Public Speaking class, the teacher stated, in front of the students present for class, that the presentation of Justin’s group was “offensive” and made reference, once again, to the Ku Klux Klan — to which the other public speaking teacher publicly commented, “pointed hats and long-flowing robes.”
Justin’s mother wrote a letter to the principal of the high school asking him to intervene. Despite her attempts, the principal refused to take any action. Without question, the comments comparing Justin and his teammates to members of the KKK were rude, offensive, and thoroughly unprofessional. Moreover, given the fact that Justin is an African-American, these comments were especially derogatory, inflammatory, and demeaning. The teachers should be reprimanded and disciplined for their rank unprofessionalism.
The comments made by the teachers regarding Justin’s presentation not only reveal conduct and attitude unbecoming public educators, they do much more: they demonstrate the real reason why Justin and his group received a failing grade. Justin received a failing grade for his assignment, not because he failed to satisfy the applicable, academic criteria for the assignment, but because he proffered opinions contrary to the personal beliefs of the teachers. Indeed, how could it be said that Justin’s teachers evaluated the presentation in question objectively, when these same teachers had no misgivings about denouncing the speech in both private and public settings?
Federal case law is clear. Students “enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.” This fact was reiterated in a case that I argued in the Supreme Court of the United States three years ago. In that particular case, the Supreme Court was unanimous. This principle applies in the public school context, where the law is well-settled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The teachers, acting as employees of Community Schools, lack legal authority to punish student expression simply because they disagree with the message unless the speech creates a material and substantial disruption to the school’s ability to fulfill its educational goals. There was no allegation that the students’ speech in any way created a disruptive environment. If anything, it was the teachers’ statements that were disruptive and insulting.
In another case I argued over a decade ago, the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he principle that has emerged from our cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.” Put simply, this school district engaged in content-based censorship.
Here, the facts are as clear as the law. Justin’s teachers discriminated against him and his teammates on account of his political and religious viewpoints and in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I am happy to report that after the American Center for Law and Justice intervened, the Superintendent of Schools corrected the situation.
First, Justin’s failing grade and those of his teammates were withdrawn. Second, the teacher in question is now required to demonstrate civility and decency when dealing with students in the future, especially on controversial issues. Third, such an inappropriate incident would never take place again in the Michigan Community Schools. In essence, what these teachers needed was a lesson in the First Amendment.
Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
townhall.com |
