Further thoughts on the case of expelled Carroll student Jeff Fraser.
1. I've read his book now. I'd say the administration overreacted, but there's certainly room for a different opinion. Fraser says his effort is "for comedic purposes only," but, as you might expect from a 17-year-old, the results are wildly uneven, ranging from the truly amusing to the hard-to-follow; sometimes it's difficult to understand when Fraser is engaged in real parody and when he is merely venting pent-up hostility over what he sees as bureaucratic ineptitude. Most of the issues he raises are ones most people would see as legitimate targets, whether one agrees with his opinions or not: unfair discipline for black students, inflation of graduation statistics, zero-tolerance on cell phones and so forth. (For a laudatory recap of Fraser's critical-thinking and observational skills, see Frank Gray's Journal Gazette column). But there are also the parts -- glossed over by many of those who seem so eager to rush Fraser into martyrdom -- that might be troubling to school officials trying to maintain discipline, that old-fashioned idea that adults are in charge. There is, for one thing, the unnecessary vulgarity, up to and including the f-word. Worse, a current administrator is called the "b" word, twice, and there is the suggestion that the same current administrator and a former one engaged in a sexual practice mostly associated with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. You can call that parody or satire, but it's still rough. I hate to pick another legal fight (see below), but it's borderline libelous, depending on how the courts might view the public-figure exceptions to such venom.
2. Tracy Warner doesn't think much of my constitutional research. He says, based on his understanding of Tom Pellegrine's understanding of the Student Press Law Center's understanding of the relevant cases, that Tinker vs. Des Moines is still the guiding light, with "substantial disruption of school activities" the only legitimate reason schools can interfere with student expression. I still beg to differ. Based on my reading of the cases, Tinker and the ones that came later adding some extra considerations to that decision, including Bethel vs. Fraser and the Hazelwood case, I'd say the whole thing is up in the air. This is especially so since we're about to have a whole new Supreme Court configuration, with four committed liberals and four committed conservatives and one wild card. If you want know the understanding of this issue of the one person who might matter most, ask Anthony Kennedy. And, just to make it a little more complicated, there is the issue of student blogs, which are produced completely outside the schools but are being cracked down on by the schools anyway. Lower courts, so far, are all over the map.
3. People can't have it both ways, incidentally. They can't say that Carroll overreacted, expelling Fraser instead of suspending him, and say at the same time that this is a slam-dunk First Amendment, student-rights case. If Fraser's First Amendment rights were violated, there should have been no punishment. Most of the cases reaching the Supreme Court in fact involve suspensions rather than expulsions. In this context, I'm not certain Carroll's overreaction matters much. Fraser warns at the very beginning of his creation that "This book WILL offend you . . . We warned you. (especially if you are an administrator)" and helpfully includes the docket number of the Tinker case, just in case anybody missed the point that he was challenging Carroll's authority and had his defense ready for the expected retaliation.
4. Carroll's overreaction and First Amendment considerations aside, the question is where we go from here, and I wonder if we're close to a no-win situation. Imagine you are a Northwest Allen County Schools board member, perhaps the deciding vote between the "anarchists are inciting the students to take over the schools" and the "fascists are trying to step on the powerless students" factions everyone seems to want to see engaged in a death match. You vote to uphold the expulsion, and you'll further alienate students who already feel as unhappy at Carroll as Fraser did, making the school's education mission more difficult. You scale back the expulsion to a suspension, and you are letting every Carroll administrator know that their authority over student behavior is diminished, making the school's education mission more difficult. And no matter which way you vote, you are likely to be dragged through the courts by the Student Press Law Center, spending money that should be going to the school's education mission. Indiana Parley likes the issues "raised by Mr. Fraser in a satirical fashion" and thinks they are "worth discussion by the school board, the taxpayers, and the parents and students the school is to serve." That's fine. But the same issues have been raised about most other public schools, and I haven't heard anyone suggest Carroll is any more inattentive to them than the others. And all the people who have these concerns -- especially those so willing to let a 17-year-old carry the water for them -- where have they been? At the school board meetings? Writing letters to the editor? Calling meetings to get something done? I think it might be useful for "the school board, the taxpayers, and the parents and students the school is to serve" to have a discussion about what is expected of public schools, what support they get, how they are supposed to negotiate all the competing interests of all of those with a claim, and who should be running things, never mind all those who would like to be.
I'll be working on ad editorial on this subject today for tomorrow's Evening Forum. I'm not sure what form it will take, although my posting here suggests several directions. As I said, the school probably overreacted, but it's more complicated than that. If you'd like to offer comments you think would make the editorial better informed, post them before 11 a.m.
