School DisciplineBy Thomas E. BrewtonEnforcing proper behavior is anathema to liberals, but essential to  learning.The recent Supreme Court decision in the MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK  case, better known as the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" case, has generated  controversy, both because of the Court's decision, and because of the  concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.Facts of the case were the following:"At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner  Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner  stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS," which she regarded as promoting illegal  drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such  messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down  the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to  the event-respondent Frederick-refused, Morse confiscated the banner  and later suspended him."The Court's ruling, expressed in the opinion of Chief Justice John  Roberts, was:"Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their  care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging  illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate  the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and  suspending Frederick.... Our cases make clear that students do not  "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression  at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community  School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). At the same time, we have  held that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are  not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other  settings," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682  (1986), and that the rights of students "must be 'applied in light of  the special characteristics of the school environment.'"The Court's decision was opposed by many people, particularly liberal- Progressives.What really agitated them, however, was the concurring opinion by  Justice Clarence Thomas.NYU Professor Jonathan Zimmerman sums up the liberal-Progressive- socialist reaction in Got discipline? ( http://www.latimes.com/news/ opinion/commentary/la-oe-zimmerman28jun28,1,6696557.story ), which  appeared in the June 28, 2007 edition of the Los Angeles Times:"In a free-speech ruling, Justice Thomas misstates the purpose of  education."WHAT ARE schools for?"For the last decade, I've taught a history course with that title at  New York University. My students and I examine the different purposes  that Americans have assigned to public schools, including:"A. to teach the great humanistic traditions of the West;"B. to develop the individual interests of the child;"C. to promote social justice;"D. to prepare efficient workers."Over the last four centuries, Americans have struggled to balance  these goals - and many others - in their schools. To Supreme Court  Justice Clarence Thomas, however, there's only one right answer:"E. to instill discipline and obedience"That's what Thomas wrote this week in his strange concurring opinion  in Morse vs. Frederick..."Note first the prominent educational role Professor Zimmerman assigns  to promoting social justice, which is a code term for socialistic  redistribution of income from "the rich" to "the workers."  Liberals,  Professor Zimmerman apparently among them, believe that breaking down  the conventions of civilized society represents progress toward  social justice and that discipline represents ignorance.In a socialized society, there are no titles of respect.  Everyone is  "citizen" or "comrade."  Why should teachers have any specially  privileged position empowering them to discipline classroom  troublemakers?Note second that, while Professor Zimmerman says that Justice Thomas  misstates the purpose of education, Professor Zimmerman completely  misrepresents Justice Thomas's conclusion.What Justice Thomas in fact wrote was:"In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As  originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a  right to free speech in public schools.... the idea of treating  children as though it were still the 19th century would find little  support today.  But I see no constitutional imperative requiring  public schools to allow all student speech."Justice Thomas added:"I write separately to state my view that the standard set forth in  "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.", 393 U. S.  503 (1969), is without basis in the Constitution..."Tinker" effected  a sea change in students' speech rights, extending them well beyond  traditional bounds. The case arose when a school punished several  students for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam  War.... Determining that the punishment infringed the students' First  Amendment rights, this Court created a new standard for students'  freedom of speech in public schools:"....[Under Tinker] unless a student's speech would disrupt the  educational process, students had a fundamental right to speak their  minds (or wear their armbands)-even on matters the school disagreed  with or found objectionable...."Justice Black dissented, criticizing the Court for "subject[ing] all  the public schools in the country to the whims and caprices of their  loudest-mouthed, but maybe not their brightest, students." Id., at  525. He emphasized the instructive purpose of schools: "[T]axpayers  send children to school on the premise that at their age they need to  learn, not teach." Id., at 522. In his view, the Court's decision  "surrender[ed] control of the American public school system to public  school students....Once a society that generally respected the  authority of teachers, deferred to their judgment, and trusted them  to act in the best interest of school children, we now accept  defiance, disrespect, and disorder as daily occurrences in many of  our public schools."Note that Justice Black was the Court's most consistent voice of  absolute freedom of speech of every kind, no matter how offensive.For those doubting the accuracy of his assessment, see Marc  Epstein's  City Journal article ( http://www.city-journal.org/html/ eon2007-04-27me.html ) "Swimming with Barracudas: Violent students  need to be expelled."In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas continued:"Because public schools were initially created as substitutes for  private schools, when States developed public education systems in  the early 1800's, no one doubted the government's ability to educate  and discipline children as private schools did. Like their private  counterparts, early public schools were not places for freewheeling  debates or exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled  "a core of common values" in students and taught them self-control...."Teachers instilled these values not only by presenting ideas but  also through strict discipline..... Schools punished students for  behavior the school considered disrespectful or wrong. Parkerson 65  (noting that children were punished for idleness, talking, profanity,  and slovenliness). Rules of etiquette were enforced, and courteous  behavior was demanded. Reese 40. To meet their educational  objectives, schools required absolute obedience...."Through the legal doctrine of 'in loco parentis', courts upheld the  right of schools to discipline students, to enforce rules, and to  maintain order..."One of the most sacred duties of parents, is to train up and qualify  their children, for becoming useful and virtuous members of society;  this duty cannot be effectually performed without the ability to  command obedience, to control stubbornness, to quicken diligence, and  to reform bad habits . . . . The teacher is the substitute of the  parent . . ."A review of the case law shows that 'in loco parentis' allowed  schools to regulate student speech as well.....The doctrine of 'in  loco parentis' limited the ability of schools to set rules and  control their classrooms in almost no way. It merely limited the  imposition of excessive physical punishment...."