25th Annual Bill of Rights
Art and Essay Contest, 2008-2009

TOPIC:  Should students' rights to free speech and
              expression be limited or denied at school?

1st Prize, High School
by A.K. from Salinas High School

Since the Enlightenment, thinkers have debated the source and nature of our rights. There are those that believe we are born with certain absolute privileges, basing much of their opinions on the writings of John Locke. Others disagree and state that man is not born possessing rights, but artificially creates them through an unbreakable contract with society or government, as described by Thomas Hobbes. In American society, especially in American schools, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a highly contested and debatable example of this philosophical standoff. On one hand, there are some that believe that the First Amendment protects all expressions of speech without exception. On the other hand, some judge that the First Amendment only protects certain types of free speech and that these areas can legally be limited if deemed necessary. Those of the latter opinion are willing to restrict speech in order to ensure safety and an effective learning environment. However, there exists no strict definition of speech that meets these vague criteria and the effectiveness of the idea is in doubt. Schools should not be allowed to limit students' speech and expression, as outlined in the First Amendment, because it is ineffective, hampers creativity and individualism, and denies young adults their inalienable rights.

The greatest tool for First Amendment limitation on school campuses is dress codes and mandated uniforms. In California, especially, many schools are forcing students to wear school-approved clothes in order to promote a safe environment from inadvertent, or purposeful, gang association. In a local example, Salinas High School, in Salinas, CA, recently enacted a dress code that banned the wearing of "red, maroon, or blue shirts, tops, coats, belts, shoelaces, lanyards/keychains, hair bands/braids, bracelets,...gloves of any color...All professional and college sports shirts, jerseys, hats, lanyards...etc." The extensive dress code limits students' rights to choose how they physically appear, without examining its effectiveness. These rules are far too encompassing to be useful. Blue and red, for example, are too common and neutral to be banned in all cases. These rules, in effect, punish the many for the wrongs of the few. Banning certain gang-related clothing solves nothing. It will only take away the rights of innocent students while forcing gangs to find new, more subtle ways to associate with each other. A rule that effectively bans the colors blue and red is egregiously inappropriate and cannot be effective under any circumstances. Yes, it is true that gangs use colors to identify themselves, but that does not give them a monopoly on the expressive use of certain colors. Accordingly, it does not give administrators the freedom to unfairly punish entire schools for the identification choices of others. The rights of law-abiding students must be protected while the rights of law-breaking citizens should be limited, rather than punishing the whole lot. In a similarly absurd First Amendment limitation, Redwood Middle School in Northern California approved a far too encompassing dress code that punished a student for wearing Winnie-the-Pooh socks. The school mandate obviously demonstrates the absurdity of dress limitations. Also, California law states that "The Legislature hereby recognizes the constitutional right of every citizen...to lawfully associate with others who share similar beliefs." School dress codes take away students' rights of association and disturbingly limit their expressive individualism creating an environment of conformity rather than safety.

The authoritative behavior of schools limiting the First Amendment creates a frightening environment strikingly Orwellian. The goal of state-sponsored education is to equip children with the basic tools needed not only to survive but to flourish in the real, independent world. It must be noted that children, after graduation, will be thrust into a democracy. In a democracy, citizens have civil responsibilities to participate knowledgeably and with integrity, as part of the Electorate. It is completely immoral and dangerous to foster children who are taught to be just like their peers. Dress codes educate children that individuality and personal judgments are not necessary. Nothing is farther from the truth. When schools do not advocate uniqueness, students are highly susceptible to manipulation and compulsive conformity. To be an active and healthy participant in a democratic state, students must practice objective thinking in order to continuously streamline their own philosophies. Limitations on the First Amendment prevent students from learning these necessary social skills and leave them unprepared for the future.

Student-produced newspapers and publications are an important component of a vibrant educational experience. Students' freedom to express contrary opinions enhances the educational process. It is wrong for students to be taught one side of an issue. Student newspapers allow the underrepresented majority of students to have their opinions heard and loudly expressed. However, schools are commonly able to censor and limit student publications. Student-newspaper censorship distracts educators from the true focus of schooling: the student. The minds of pupils are not blank to be freely molded by educators, but are simply young and inexperienced. Limiting student-press does not allow students to think critically about issues from new perspectives. On the other hand, extending the basic freedom of the press to students gives them the opportunity to assess and contribute from a rarely heard viewpoint. In fact, the Supreme Court case, Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, secured that educational facilities cannot punish students for indecent or offensive speech that did not disrupt campus order or interfere with the rights of others. With this decision, students were legally able to express themselves with the same rights as any other citizen. However, schools have found loopholes in the protections of the Bill of Rights and the decisions of the courts. Regardless of the legality, or illegality, of a school's actions, students should always be allowed to enjoy the freedom of the press without censorship.

It is true that students should not be subject to free speech-limitation. However, this does not mean that minors should hold more rights than older citizens. Both groups should receive identical rights because they are both equally protected under the Bill of Rights. It is a form of age discrimination to say that students should have their inalienable rights limited because of their age. Just as those of any age group should receive uniform and equal rights, so, too, should their rights be limited identically. For example, the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment do not protect adult citizens' use of obscenity, libel, or slander, nor should students' use of this speech be protected. Both parties should enjoy equal rights, as well as equal limitations of the First Amendment.

Students' rights under the First Amendment must be strongly protected. Limiting student free speech is unconstitutional and immoral. It stifles creativity and leaves students sadly unprepared for participation in a democracy. Pupils must practice exercising their rights with the freedom to express themselves in a safe and accepting school environment. It is unfair that some can possess First Amendment rights while others cannot. This is age discrimination. The time has come for students to stand up for their own rights and to fight for what they should be guaranteed and deserve. John Milton, the famous English poet, once said, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." This debate is not a simple legal question, but a battle that extends deeply into the framework of our democracy.