The Classroom Marketplace: Ideas Welcome

Since my original years in college, studying for a dual major in political science and American history with a minor in education, I have looked to Tinker v. DesMoines (1969) as a reflection of my educational philosophy. This week my school law professor speaks eloquently to how the majority decision in this case supports the idea of the schoolhouse as a ‘marketplace of ideas’: “In this view, it could be easily argued that the school’s squelching of John and Mary Beth Tinker’s free speech rights was actually detrimental to the fundamental mission of the public school – to teach students to think and express themselves independently.” (personal communication, Hopson, M., October 31, 2010) I could not possibly state my position more accurately than this. The most formative portions of my education have historically come, and continue to come, through hearing opposing viewpoints expressed in a thoughtful, reasoned manner. This very blog gives life to lectures, readings, and endless pages of case law because others share ideas and perspectives that I would not have access to in my own narrow history of experience. In last week’s discussion board, a colleague discussed the value of dynamic exchange of differing ideas when she writes, “An open forum is what teaches our children how to navigate through the waters of citizenship. To be able to speak their minds with tact and still be friends in the end is a necessary skill that I want my children to have.” (personal communication, Kelly, J., October 26, 2010) Again, I could not possibly improve on her words or her sentiment. I can only add that I do recognize how working to balance ideology and reality is a legitimate challenge for leaders in all areas of governance, including in education. Part of educating a citizenry includes teaching the rules and mores of their society: civil exchange of ideas cannot occur without such knowledge. So, in my mind, the boundary between holding dear the value of discourse and teaching children the appropriate mechanism for that exchange is the thin line on which campus leaders walk. For me, my right and responsibility to expression of ideas and my responsibility to foster exchange of ideas remains at the heart of my call to teach.

Works Cited:
Tinker v. DesMoines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Weighing In on Boobies, Wristbands, and Symbolic Speech

School districts all over the country are banning "I Love Boobies" wristbands. Students all over the country are howling in outrage. Many of my colleagues both a school and in my graduate course are firmly on the side of the school districts. Well . . .
At the risk of showing my stripes a bit, I’m afraid I’m going to have to side largely with students on this issue. While some might believe the word ‘boobies’ is not in the best possible taste, I think that as educators we are crossing a thin but civilly important line. I talked with my mother, who recalls in detail the controversy surrounding the black armbands of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, who reminded me that, like any other distinctive clothing statement, some students wore the armbands for more superficial reasons than higher ethical or moral ones. This did not in any way diminish the intention of many to speak a cherished truth, and it did not diminish the rights of students to express their belief systems as such.
These bracelets have a clear message to those who subscribe to it, and the simple wearing of a band, whose font is approximately 14 point, on the wrist is not of itself disruptive to learning. I also believe that within the bounds of our society, this statement does not qualify as ‘lewd’ or ‘vulgar’, regardless of whether we think the wording is ideal. In my mind, the wearing of these bands by students passes both prongs of the Tinker test. I think that there are moments when the disruption to learning is caused not by students, but by us.
Works Cited:
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).