Consequences Of Dangerous Protesting In School Settings

For decades, students have used violence, destruction, and distraction to protest on school property. Students have been protesting for many decades for example, the court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1968. In this case, Mary Beth and John Tinker along with other students decided to protest the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. John Tinker got the idea to wear black armbands from a protest he had attended. The students were suspended until they would follow the schools wishes of not wearing the armbands. The suspension lasted a week. Eventually the students decided to return to school; they wore all black since they could not wear the armbands. The parents of the children filed a complaint against the school, and the case made it to the Supreme Court. The case was ruled in favor of the children.
Although the students won the case and have constitutional rights, school administration should still punish students who protest because protests tend to turn violent, disrupt the schools’ daily operation, and student athletes are misrepresenting the school. School administration should take corrective actions against students who protest with acts of violence and vandalism. James Meredith made history by becoming the first African American admitted to the University of Mississippi in 1962. Meredith was greeted with hostile protest and “campus riots that left 2 people dead and more than 160 wounded, including dozens of federal marshals”. According to Raymond Wolters of the University of Delaware, “a riot erupted that claimed more casualties than any other civil rights clash of the early 1960s”. In fact, President Kennedy had to send troops to escort Meredith to class daily. It is noted that Meredith described his presence as a “walk against fear. ” Clearly, the University of Mississippi could have halted the violent protest and infringement of Meredith’s right to a safe learning environment by implementing disciplinary actions on its student body. One can say the same for the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Frustrated with the representation of the Confederate, which protestors related to white supremacy, the Silent Sam statue was covered with a banner and toppled by protestors.
Protests in the past have proven protest to become very violent and sometimes even deadly. Evidently, school administration needs to punish students who protest with vandalism to deter the notion that students can turn protest into violence. School administration should punish students who disrupt the school’s daily operation. School officials do not have a problem with students protesting, as long as they do it on their own time. According to Alexia Hernandez, “Schools can only discipline students if their speech or actions cause “material” or “substantial” disruption to school functions. ” If students were to protest during school hours it would cause a huge impairment on other student’s education, and would be considered a “disruption to school functions”. The students who would not like to participate in the protests should not have their learning interrupted by others causing havoc. Most schools number one priority is to maintain a safe learning environment for all students, which cannot happen if students are protesting. No parents should be worried about their child’s safety while they are at school. A large percentage of people have mobile devices, and if students are protesting and it gets broadcasted on television or social media then parents will see what is happening. This will spark fear in parents for their children, which will cause parents wanting to get their children away from the school. Then, the school will have multiple parents attempting to get their children to safety which will ultimately cause even more of a problem than just a protest. School administration should discipline student athletes who use sporting events to protest.
Student athletes represent not only themselves, but their team and school. Numerous student athletes have decided to protest the social injustice over the death of unarmed black men by the hands of police officers. The first collegiate team to protest was the Georgetown University men basketball team. The team wore “I Can’t Breathe” shirts mirroring the last words Eric Garner who was choked by an officer (Arnett). Head coach, Coach Thompson responded by iterating to Sports Illustrated that “The job is more than about basketball. We are an educational intuition” (Arnett). American high school athletes are using the NFL players’ trend of protesting during the national anthem at games to protest social injustice of black men. Last year, New Jersey saw some college and high school athletes protest during nationals. Some Rutgers University football players protested by remaining in the locker room during the anthem, while the black athletes of the Woodrow Wilson High School kneeled. Governor Chris Christie disapproved of the protest and stated, “I don’t believe that athletes should use the forum of their games to protest things that are outside of the games. If they want to protest about things that they’re disconnect with around the country, it’s their right to do it. I don’t think it is right to use a forum that’s provided to them”.
Locally, members of Starkville High School’s volleyball team created controversial public statement by kneeling during the anthem before a matchup with New Hope School. In the Clarion-Ledger’s article by Bracey Harris “Starkville Volleyball Players Kneel During National Anthem”, Dr. Peasant, Superintendent of Starkville-Oktibbeha Consolidated School District, acknowledging that student athletes have civil rights, stated, “Sometimes, kids this age aren’t aware of the ramifications of decisions like this” and referenced the protest as “ a teachable moment” (Harris). Jeff Smith, attorney for Lowndes County School District drafted a policy that require everyone attending school sponsored sporting events to stand for the national anthem. Smith said the 1943 Supreme Court ruling of West Virginia State Board of Education vs Barnette “which decided students cannot be punished for not participating in religious or patriotic ceremonies does not apply”.
Furthermore, Smith said, “that case doesn’t apply to extra-curricular activities where students give their consent to follow the policy set by their school or coach”. Opponents argue that students have a constitutional right to protest in school. The Tinker v. Des Moines case of 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that, “students do not shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech. . . at the school house gate”. Furthermore, students who protest feel that they are using their First Amendment by protesting. Hernandez stated that, “students at private schools and universities do not have First Amendment protections on campus. ” In light of this, the school administrators are not violating the students’ civil rights by disciplining protestors. When the protest becomes such a great distraction to where teachers are unable to teach, the students’ action then become punishable. In conclusion, students should be punished for using schools as platforms to protest. Dating all the way back to the early 60s, protesting has a history of becoming violent and destructive. Many colleges have had protests turn into violent riots where many lives were lost and even statues torn down. Also, students who walk out or miss school to protest are violating schools’ policies and disrupting schools’ daily schedule. Student athletes are taking the attention from their teammates and game by kneeling during the national anthem.
Overall, school administration can ensure that schools are safe learning environments for all students by deterring protest through disciplinary actions.