A look at the unintended consequences of exercising 1st Amendment rights in America and the inherent guarantees of freedom of expression in a free society. – SMD
Cape Cod Times: “First Amendment Consequences”
Commentary/Opinion
July 6, 2010
By Jim Coogan
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, with its guarantees of free speech and inherent right of protest, constantly has a way of reminding us that living in a free society can produce unintended outcomes. Over the years, the courts have expanded First Amendment rights to the point that it is doubtful that the Framers would recognize it.
Situations like the hateful picketing by the Westboro, Kansas, Baptist Church at military funerals, nude dancing as a form of expression, and even a congressman’s shout of “you lie” at a presidential State of the Union address are protected rights. If nothing else, these examples prove that the First Amendment is no guarantee of good taste or good judgment.
The seniors last assembly at Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School in June showed us again how delicate the balance is between the right to protest and the appropriateness of the action.
When teachers Marybeth Verani and Adeline Koscher held up an “End War” sign during the ceremony honoring some students who were entering the military, their action opened another chapter in the debate about when a protest is appropriate.
My first reaction to the story was that both Ms. Verani and Ms. Koscher chose the wrong time to air their feeling about war. The majority of letter writers to this paper certainly felt that way, calling for them to be disciplined — even fired for what they did. The issue traveled beyond the local community into the national media where most opinions were not kind to the two teachers.
But in taking the longer view of what happened, the rush to judgment by critics of the two teachers may have been misplaced. The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that students and teachers do not lose their constitutional rights to speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Two landmark cases, Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and Cockerel v. Shelby County School District (2001), make it clear that teachers have a right to express opinions freely on matters of public concern, regardless of whether these views are seen by the school administration as threats to work-place loyalty and efficiency.
Two teachers passively holding an “End War” sign seems hardly a disruptive act given that the statement most certainly echoed the sentiments of a lot of people who were at that assembly. Call it foolish, inappropriate, disrespectful, annoying, even naive, but the right of peaceful protest has always been part of our history.
At the 1968 Olympics, American sprinters John Carlos and Tommie Smith stood silently holding up black-gloved fists to protest racism in the United States. They were vilified and stripped of their medals for using an “inappropriate” venue to air their grievances and causing embarrassment to the country. Today, few who look back at their actions see anything beyond a sincere and justified expression of moral outrage against a long train of racial injustice.
It should be pointed out that neither Verani nor Koscher attempted to stop the ceremony. They simply held up a sign. And the issue of war — especially as it seems to have become an accepted and natural extension of American foreign policy — is never an off-limits topic, especially to those who oppose conflict on moral grounds.
Most Americans are aware that people who enter the military take an oath to serve, support, and defend the Constitution. By that oath, a military person accepts the principle that even what may seem “inappropriate,” and even personally repugnant, must be upheld as the price of living in a free society. The enlistees who were honored at D-Y will soon be defending the precious right of Americans to differ. It’s a very serious commitment that they are making. People who continue to call for the heads of these two teachers need to be reminded of that.