« Fox tries to pander to the Christian market | Main | What Keith said »

May 23, 2007

Anti-Gay Students Protest for Speech Rights

A conflict has been brewing for a month now at San Juan High School in Citrus Heights, California over the suspension of dozens of students who wore anti-gay T-shirts to school in protest of the Day of Silence (which is designed to promote tolerance for gays and lesbians). For the past month, the students and church members have been holding multiple protests over the suspensions, claiming their First Amendment rights are being infringed, and picketing has even occurred in front of the principal's home and his church. I am surprised that the matter has come to this point, actually, and am very interested to see what ultimately comes from this case in terms of students' freedom of speech on public school property.

The shirts contained texts from the Bible on the subject of homosexuality. One shirt read, "Don't touch God's rainbow," which was a protest of the use of the rainbow by homosexuals as a symbol of diversity. Or, as WorldNet Daily describes it, "he was offended homosexual activists had stolen the biblical symbol of promise and turned it into an icon of perversion." Other shirts read, "Sodomy is Sin" and "Homosexuality is a Sin." The school district decided that a shirt that is offensive to anyone cannot be worn. Not surprisingly, a Catholic news service described the ongoing conflict in an article entitled, "School supports Sodomy."

Last night, the students submitted the following resolution to the School Board for consideration:

As Christian students enrolled at the San Juan Unified School District and members of student religious clubs, we seek to resolve an ongoing conflict regarding free expression on high school campuses. To this end, we respectfully submit this request as follows:

Whereas, there is an ongoing disagreement between students and District administrators, teachers and staff, regarding the rights to free expression on high school campuses;
Whereas, Christian students have worn clothing and distributed literature which the District asserts offends students who are homosexual or otherwise identify themselves as "gay" or "lesbian";

Whereas, students who have engaged in expressive conduct have been subject to discipline, including suspensions;

Whereas, students who have been subject to discipline for peacefully engaging in expressive conduct have protested in front of school campuses;

Whereas, Christian students who engage in peaceful expressive conduct on matters of contemporary moral, political and social topics are acting in accordance with a long tradition within the faith community;

Whereas, proposed laws addressing issues directly related to homosexuality are currently being debated in California;

Whereas, attempts to silence students by punishing or otherwise censoring them has served to aggravate the disagreement between Christian students and the District;

Whereas, as people of faith it is our religious and civic duty to not be silent on important issues;

Whereas, we will continue to exercise our rights of speech on District campuses, both as individuals and through student clubs;

Whereas, as Christians we also seek to live at peace with all of our fellow students and District employees;

Whereas, we believe that all peaceable students are entitled to educational opportunities regardless of their beliefs;

Whereas, students should not be subjected to bullying by other students, discipline by administrators, or academic punishment by teachers merely for what they believe and for peacefully expressing those beliefs;

Whereas, the students and religious clubs are desirous of obtaining an agreement with the District which both protects student speech and maintains an atmosphere which is civil;

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Board of Trustees direct District administrators to draft general guidelines for expressive conduct to be presented for review to the Board at the next board meeting. In view of this, the Christian students have these requirements for the guidelines as follows:

- permit students to speak to moral issues and conduct;

- permit quotations from religious texts such as the Bible; and,

- create a safe, educationally sound, environment for all students regardless of belief.

An interesting aspect of this story is the involvement of the "underground" Church of the Divide, which meets in members' homes rather than in an official church building.

Dick Otterstad and son Luke, leaders of the 20-member El Dorado County congregation, have staged dozens of demonstrations in recent years to expose what they view as Christian persecution.

They've taken to Wal-Mart parking lots dressed up as Santa Claus to warn shoppers about the company's use of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." They've donned red devil suits and picketed the "imposition" of gay tolerance at school workshops. And they've attracted media attention -- from outlets as big as CNN and USA Today -- at almost every turn.

The Otterstads and their church brought those tactics to Sacramento … orchestrating rallies against Dave Terwilliger, the San Juan High School principal …

Ever since, rallies in front of San Juan High have become a routine part of life, with supporters using bullhorns and cardboard signs to make their case. …

The Otterstads entered the fray … by taking the protests a step further -- to the principal's home and house of worship … Celtic Cross Presbyterian Church in Citrus Heights. As Terwilliger worshipped inside, the group hoisted signs labeling him a "hypocrite" and called for his excommunication.

After the service, the group followed Terwilliger to his home on Pomeroy Way, where the rally continued. The group distributed flyers to neighbors that, according to Dick Otterstad, essentially read: "Your neighbor is persecuting Christians. You need to confront him over his tyrannical behavior at a public high school."

Local church officials, school leaders and even one supporter of the suspended students said Monday that such tactics mark a nasty, personal turn in a debate that's so far remained peaceful.

"It's extreme, I would say," said Peter Ganchenko, a self-described Christian conservative who has organized many of the high school demonstrations. "I don't know why they would do that."

Dick Otterstad said the Bible calls on adherents to expose sin and what they see as perversions of biblical truths. If that means protesting at someone's home or church, so be it.

His church has done it before. In February, Otterstad and church members protested outside the First Baptist Church in Davis to call for the ouster of a member of that congregation, Freddie Oakley, Yolo County's clerk-recorder. The protest targeted Oakley's decision to issue "Certificates of Inequality" to gay couples who wanted to marry. The certificates have no legal basis, but Oakley said they were intended to highlight the unfair treatment of gay couples under the law.

Otterstad, who wants public schools abolished and sodomy laws reinstated, owns a company called "No Gay Gear Inc." that sells anti-gay materials such as T-shorts and magnets. Last year, his company provided T-shirts that the students wore to school in a similar protest.

Trent Allen, a spokesman for the school district, says the shirts aren't about religious belief, but rather are targeting homosexuals and implying they will go to hell. "We don't want an intimidating environment where students feel harassed and persecuted because of one of their identifying qualities." The district says it supports the students' First Amendment rights – just not at school.

And the First Amendment is really what this dispute comes down to. The Illinois First Amendment Center links to several landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that lay out the extent of students' expressive freedom on public school property. One of the more important cases is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In that case, the Court said, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Court also stated, "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots."

Another pertinent case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, summarized previous cases as stating that students "cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises … unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will 'substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.'" Nevertheless, "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its 'basic educational mission,' … even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." Determining what speech is appropriate is the responsibility of the school board. However, the Court said in Hazelwood, the school's ability to restrict student speech is limited to school-sponsored speech, such as "publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that … bear the imprimatur of the school." The school cannot "silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises."

GLSEN has addressed the matter of First Amendment protection in the debate of homosexuality between students at schools very well at its website. The group offers a link to consensus guidelines that were designed to help deal with conflicts over views of homosexuality in light of the First Amendment. One item in those guidelines reads:

Be careful that you do not discriminate against student clubs or expression simply because the political or religious message is unpopular or potentially offensive to some. Educators can and should require that all viewpoints be expressed in a respectful manner, but they may not exclude some views merely because they don’t agree with them. To do so constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

In short, schools cannot impose a religious viewpoint in the matter of homosexuality, but they also cannot prevent students from expressing their religious beliefs on the matter. So long as the exchange remains peaceful and non-disruptive, it must be allowed. I am surprised the Citrus Heights area's school board is not being advised by an attorney to drop the suspensions and allow the students to wear their shirts, despite the fact that they are offensive. On the other hand, the situation appears to this outsider to potentially be disruptive and contributory toward an unsafe atmosphere for some students. So I will be very interested to see if this goes to court, and if so, how it flavors the overall interpretation of First Amendment protection for student speech.

Posted by Becky at May 23, 2007 10:43 AM