The suspension of an 11-year-old Colorado student for sporting an anti-Obama message raises the question of whether the proponents of "free speech" in schools really believe in the concept . . . or understand it.

Daxx Dalton is a very principled boy. At the tender age of 11, not only does he have political passions, he is willing to wear them on his shirtsleeve (or at least his back) and go to the mat for them. Thus, when Aurora Frontier K-8 School made him an offer he couldn't refuse, saying he must remove his anti-Obama t-shirt, turn it inside-out or face suspension, he refused. He chose suspension.

This just may be where my critics are saying "gotcha!" After all, I recently defended a principal in Florida who punished his students for spreading pro-homosexual messages, arguing that the framers of the Constitution never intended for the First Amendment to apply to minors in school (Calvin Thomas agrees with me, by the way). This prompted some leftists to assume that I was as emotion-driven and subject to situational-value responses and, therefore, as hypocritical as they are. They were sure I'd sing a different tune if the issue were traditionalist speech.

They were wrong.

Oh, I can certainly sympathize with Master Dalton. As his father said, the public schools are filled with "liberal loons." I also respect his fortitude, as I certainly wouldn't have taken such a stand at his tender age (of course, back then we did have this crazy idea that we should obey authority figures). Yet the principles at stake here are just and sound and simple enough to understand.

First, you cannot secure an environment conducive to learning without discipline and obedience, and these two qualities cannot be engendered unless students' deeds and words can be controlled. Second, we don't really believe in free speech in schools; if we did, we would allow students to curse out teachers and exercise it in all the other ways adults can in the wider society. Thus, it isn't a matter of whether we will set limits, but simply of who will set them. And all we've done with the blather about intra-school "free speech" is transfer that power from localities to the black-robed social engineers in the courts. (Since I don't want to rehash all my arguments here, I suggest you read the earlier referenced piece and my response to some critics.)

I suspect this is precisely what many advocates of school faux free speech want. They know that localities, which are closer to the people, are more likely to reflect citizens' will and uphold tradition. And we can't have the rubes who cling to guns and religion setting behavior standards, now, can we? So, instead, they wanted the Supreme Court — a governmental entity most removed from the people, as it is in Washington, unelected and unaccountable — to slap a straightjacket of conformity on every town in the land. Remember, if social engineering is your goal, it's easier to convince one court than thousands of localities; it's easier to sway a handful of judges than 300 million people.

It's also pretty certain that at least a few faux-free-speech proponents understand that what they offer isn't really free speech. Yet, whether ignorant or insidious, the end result is that their agenda is promoted because most schools are controlled by their fellow travelers. Thus, their side usually decides where "freedom of speech" ends — and these are people who are quick with a rationalization.

And, boy, did they ever conjure up a doozy in the Dalton case. Listen to this double-talk: The school said that while it respects free speech, it disallowed Daxx's shirt because it was causing a disruption — shouting and yelling. To be precise, Daxx said in an O'Reilly Factor interview that some of the other kids were calling him racist.

Without a doubt, Daxx's message, "Obama is a terrorist's best friend," is certainly eyebrow-raising. Yet let's be clear, a t-shirt doesn't cause shouting and yelling. People who decide to shout and yell cause shouting and yelling.     

Some will say, "C'mon, Duke, you know certain messages are likely to evoke anger." Sure, but I ask you, what is the purpose of the First Amendment? It wasn't crafted to protect popular speech because its popularity is protection enough; you don't get your head chopped off for calling the king just, benevolent and wise but for saying he has no clothes. It exists precisely to protect what is called offensive, ugly or disruptive speech. Thus, if you cannot say the majority has no clothes — if the right is limited by what is popular — it means nothing. Yet this is precisely the standard the faux-free-speech crowd upholds, which only vindicates my thesis. There isn't really free speech in the schools, just an agenda-facilitating imposter.

So here is the game: Posture about the importance of students' right to free speech while also asserting that it's limited by the imperative of not allowing disruption. Now, since what is disruptive is determined by context — a cat is disruptive among dogs and a dog is disruptive among cats — today's politically-correct environment ensures that it is mainly politically-incorrect sentiments that will be viewed as disruptive. Thus, a disproportionate percentage of prohibited dissent will be the traditionalist variety. And that is how culture wars are won.

As an example, consider how different the reaction would be if a student displayed a pro-homosexual message and was taunted by his peers. There is little question the harassers would be disciplined, and they might even be charged with "hate speech." Yet what happened in Daxx's case? The onus wasn't put on the shouters and screamers — those who truly created the disruption — but on the target of their wrath.             

If school administrators really believed in and understood freedom of speech, they might have used this event as a teaching moment. They could have taught the children that the right sometimes involves hearing opinions you detest. They could have taught true tolerance, which, correctly defined, means tolerating things you perceive to be negative. They could have scheduled a sensitivity assembly. Again, if the target had been a homosexual student, such re-education would likely be in the offing.

Then again, they could just accept Daxx's speech and that of the shouters and screamers and let first-amendment rights truly come to flower in their institution. Oh, what's that you say? There has to be order?

Exactly.

That's why kids don't have freedom of speech in school.  

Having said this, Daxx's father has vowed to file a lawsuit against Aurora Frontier K-8, and I wish him Godspeed. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the best way to eliminate a stupid law is to enforce it strictly. Freedom of speech in school across-the-board, I say, and let the chips fall where they may.

Besides, given the state of education, a little more disruption may be an improvement. The students will probably learn more from Daxx's t-shirt than from the politically-correct curriculum anyway.
 

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.