By Selwyn Duke

Recently I wrote a piece about the Ponce de
Leon, Florida, school board, which recently lost a free-speech case filed
against it by the ACLU and a student. At
issue were the actions of former Ponce de Leon High School principal David
Davis, who was accused of stifling free expression by prohibiting pro-homosexual
activism. (The article is here. You’ll have to read it to have the necessary
background.)

I’ve received a good amount of
reader feedback, and I can’t think of a piece I’ve penned that has been so
misunderstood by some of those in my camp. Thus, I’ve decided to address their comments here. The respondents’ points and my responses
follow.

1. Principal Davis has been accused
of subjecting female students to inappropriate searches. It has also been pointed out that he has
advocated display of the Confederate Flag. How could I defend such a man?

The truth is that I don’t have to
address such accusations. Why? Because the school board wasn’t sued on the
basis of inappropriate searches or advocacy of Confederate symbols.

It was taken to court for violation of free-speech rights. That is the issue.

In other words, I was addressing
the principle, not the principal. For
all I know, the principal may be a horrible man (I’m not saying he is), but,
correct me if I’m wrong, there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing
students nice principals. The ACLU took
the school board to court for violation of the First Amendment, and the ruling
was based on precedents in which the federal judiciary had usurped state
authority and established rules governing student speech. It was this principle that I was addressing:
That youths in school don’t actually have first-amendment rights and that,
under our system, localities should be the ones to determine what speech is
allowable in their schools.

Note, it was quite obvious that
this is what I was addressing in the piece. However, the obvious will elude people when they react emotionally, as opposed
to exercising logical analysis. It is
then that they will conflate things that have absolutely nothing to do with one
another.

2. Duke has completely missed the
point. Courts have already determined
that students do have certain free speech rights in school. So he is wrong; it is already in black and
white, in constitutional case law.

These readers are the ones who have
missed the point. I’m well aware of that
very well-known precedent (how could I not be?), but I will quote something Jonathan
Swift wrote in his book Gulliver’s
Travels:

It is a maxim among these lawyers that
whatever has been done before, may legally be done again: and therefore they
take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common
justice, and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of
precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most iniquitous
opinions; and the judges never fail of directing accordingly.

So let’s talk about constitutional
case law. Do you mean that such as the Kelo eminent-domain decision, which
grants governments the authority to seize private property from individuals for
the purposes of giving it to other private entities that will use it make
money? Do you mean the 1947 “separation
of church and state decision,” the handiwork of Klansman Hugo Black? Remember, in the name of that “precedent,”
activist judges have been denuding our cultural landscape of historically-present
Christian symbols, thereby destroying tradition and acting contrary to the will
of the Founding Fathers.

Make no mistake, I have no respect – zero, zilch, nada – for unconstitutional
precedent. Jurists who create it are
perpetrating illegal acts, as they are violating the supreme law of the land. Thus, we not only have a right to resist it,
but a duty to do so.

Moreover, I think it, well . . . I’ll
be diplomatic, smacks of convenience when people who embrace the founders’
vision for America cite legal precedent to buttress a point. While we may at times disagree on what
constitutes a violation of the Constitution, surely you know that our Black
Robes often are doing nothing more than imposing their values from the
bench. They’re not even consistent
across generations, as the High Court (I’m not sure what it’s high on) has
often contradicted itself, ruling contrary to precedent when it didn’t accord
with their agenda. It seems that all
precedent is equal, but some is more equal than others.

Regardless, I was speaking of what should be, not what is. If I did the latter, it wouldn’t be social
criticism. It would be called news.

3. I’m sure you’d be up in arms if it was Christian expression that was
prohibited.

Where’ve ya been, buddy? Have you been asleep with Rip Van Winkle in
the Catskill Mountains? It is usually Christian expression that is
stifled in today’s schools, thanks to the ACLU and their ilk. This is why my advocacy of local control is a
principled stand. I know that many
localities would unfairly target religion in schools, but I also know that as
long as we live in this constitutional republic, we should accept the
proposition that we must abide by the Constitution.

4. The courts have ruled that schools may censor the manner of speech, but
not the substance. They may censor
speech that’s plainly offensive, for instance, but not the peaceful display of
symbols. Furthermore, judges have ruled
that if you allow some extra-curricular groups, you must allow all.

Again I will say that this is another
example of unconstitutional and insane judicial intrusion. First, what is offensive is relative (this
isn’t synonymous with saying that what is wrong
is relative; a person may be offended by something good because his conscience
has been incorrectly formed). Most
everyone is offended by something and most everything offends someone. You cannot tell me what I do or don’t find
offensive, and neither can a lawyer in a black robe. This is why such determinations should be
left up to localities, as what San Franciscans find offensive seems to be very
different than what people in Ponce de Leon find so.

But let’s talk about this idea that
students may espouse whatever positions they want in schools in the name of
free speech. Do you really believe this?

Such a standard means that we would
have to allow neo-Nazi, Black Panther, communist and all other types of groups
and sentiments in schools (although I’m sure leftists will find a nice “hate-speech”
loophole to prohibit the ideas they dislike). Then, would you say that students should be allowed to display symbols
in support of bestiality? If not, why? You can’t censor substance, after all.

This is why such a position is
folly. The young cannot be molded
properly unless they can be shielded from corruptive influences, both from
adults and their peers. You will always have a few parents who will
allow their children to engage in untoward behavior, to advocate destructive philosophies
and ideologies and to foment unrest.  It is
ridiculous to say that the majority of students must be exposed to this – that their
educational experience must be impacted and their judgment possibly corrupted –
in deference to some misguided notion of free speech.

Moreover, virtually all agree with
the courts and cede that schools can censor what is disruptive. Well, how can one possibly say that wearing pro-homosexual symbols doesn’t qualify? Remember that this is a hot-button issue of
our day, one pertaining to a sexual behavior that I and many others consider a
perversion. If you think that a school
has somehow transgressed against decency by prohibiting such displays, there’s
something wrong with your sense of discernment.

The truth is that I’m not a creature
of this age. Thus, it’s not surprising
that many – being in the grip of modernism – have trouble understanding my
world view. We have equality on the
brain in our society and have lost sight of necessary distinctions that must be
made among groups. You cannot perpetuate
freedom unless you ensure that the next generation is moral, and this can’t be
done unless you can instill them with virtue and teach morality. This is hard to reinforce in schools when you
allow ne’er do wells and agitators to infect the student body with corruptive
ideas. Schools should be places of
virtue, not dens of iniquity.

Freedom of speech is fine in the wider society,
but minors should not enjoy it when under the dominion of legitimate authority. To pretend otherwise is madness.

      Protected by Copyright