Censorship of anti-abortion material in public school

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

Michael, a 14-year-old student, distributed anti-abortion leaflets at his middle school on Oct. 24, 2006 in honor of the “Third Annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity.” Followers of the protest also wore sweatshirts that said, “Pray to End Abortion,” as well as a piece of red duct tape over their mouths and wrists to symbolize how “they speak for unborn children.”

In an opinion released on Oct. 7, 2008, a three-judge panel at the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that “hallways in public middle schools are not public forums, so school officials have wide discretion over regulating student speech in the hallways.” Judge John M. Rogers cited Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier as the court’s reasoning, alluding to the decision that high school administrators can censor numerous school-sponsored student publications if they can prove they have a legitimate educational reason for doing so.

During Michael’s first class, his teacher asked him to go to the office because he was “causing a disruption.” He was then sent to the guidance counselor, who made him turn his sweatshirt inside-out. According to the guidance counselor, his message was too “political,” and the school “could speak about abstinence, but not about abortion, and that the school had to remain neutral and people couldn’t take sides.”

However, later that day, Michael turned his sweatshirt right side-out again. The principal also denied Michael’s request to distribute the anti-abortion leaflets, on the premises that he did not have a chance to approve the leaflets’ content in a timely manner, as stated in the school’s policies.

Even though the U.S. district court ruled in favor of Michael, the Sixth Circuit reversed that ruling, saying that the First Amendment did not protect Michael’s rights. It argued that under Tinker v. Des Moines, “student expression is constitutionally protected unless it is unlawful (libelous, obscene, constitutes an invasion of privacy, etc.) or it seriously and physically disrupts normal school activities.” It also argued that the school was not trying to infringe upon the student’s right to freedom of speech, but to prevent hallway clutter and congestion.

Despite the school’s best interests of staying neutral on controversial matters and preventing hallway traffic, they, as well as the Sixth Circuit, went a little too far with infringing upon the student’s rights. While asking the student to remove duct tape from his mouth, as it interferes with his ability to participate in class, is understandable, asking him to remove or turn his sweatshirt inside-out is not. Since the student attended a public school and was not directly causing a disruption, his freedom of speech and expression should have been protected under the First Amendment.