Do you really think that the teachers were concerned over "violence" contained in a web address on the poster?
Do you think that Stapelfeld, the principal, recieved compaints from "concerned parents and other community members"?
It must be noted that Lindsay Corcoran is a student at HHS, not a professional journalist. It is also to be noted that the issue was given a half page with eighth page photo of the conservative club at a meeting.
My cousin tells me that they use Howard Zinn's "history" book as a textbook, to show how openminded and unbiased that are.
They merely feel that "as social studies teachers, part of our job is to question students' ideas in order to force them to support their claims with evidence." Do the teachers support their own claims with evidence, and allow students to challenge them?
Pacific Justice Institute, www.pacificjustice.org sent a letter to the principal of Hudson High School, John Stapelfeld, that seeks to force the school to allow the display of the website address for High School Conservative Clubs of America http://www.hscca.org on club posters. The letter states:
We have been contacted by Chris Bowler, a student at Hudson High School and founder of the Conservative Club. Mr. Bowler has suffered adverse treatment in the promotion of his club, in that school officials removed his promotional posters. It is our understanding that the posters were removed because they referenced www.hscca.org, the official website of High School Conservative Clubs of America.
Mr. Bowler has been told that the website cannot be referenced because it promotes violence. However, even a cursory perusal of the site reveals that, far from promoting or encouraging violence, it condemns terrorism and radical Islam through the most poignant means available—unmasking it and showing its true colors. At the same time, in keeping with the goals and mission of the Conservative Club, the site primarily promotes the ideals of freedom, patriotism, and traditional values. It is hard to imagine a site which is more devoted to civic issues—or more protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As you are no doubt aware, the First Amendment prohibits content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech. Similarly, the Equal Access Act requires that Hudson High School treat the Conservative Club equally with similar clubs and student organizations. More than 35 years ago, in its landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court declared, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates." Id. at 506. The court further stated that "students may not be regarded as closed circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. Id. at 511.
Ironically, Tinker upheld the rights of students to protest war-related violence and murder, much as Mr. Bowler is attempting to do. While political speech can often be controversial and cause uneasiness among some people who hear or see it, such effects are clearly inadequate justification for school officials to engage in viewpoint discrimination and censorship. "[W]here there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would 'materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,' the prohibition [on speech] cannot be sustained." Id. quoting Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (1966).
It can hardly be argued that mere reference to an external website which condemns violence and extols traditional values somehow "materially and substantially interferes" with school discipline. We are aware that Hudson High School has not found it necessary to inhibit the promotion--by teachers, no less—of the violent and highly controversial film "Fahrenheit 9/11," or the promulgation of posters vilifying President Bush. These contradictions can only lead to the conclusion that Hudson High has practiced and is practicing viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of Mr. Bowler's First Amendment rights. This, in spite of the fact that Hudson High prides itself on being named a "First Amendment" school.
In the related and equally-controversial topic of religious speech by school clubs, the courts have provided further helpful insight: "While the school is certainly permitted to maintain order and discipline in the school hallways and classrooms by limiting the number and manner of both printed and oral announcements for all student groups, 20 U.S.C. §4071(f), it may not discriminate among students based on the religious content of [their] expression. . . ." (emphasis added) Prince v. Jacoby, 303 F.3d 1074, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 813 (2003). In like manner, censorship of the Conservative Club and Mr. Bowler because their reference to an external source of information is allegedly "disruptive" impermissibly restricts speech based on others' reaction to the speaker's views. See, e.g., Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).
We therefore request that you immediately cease all speech restrictions on Mr. Bowler and the Conservative Club, specifically allowing the use of posters which mention the HSCCA website. The Pacific Justice Institute hopes that the articulation of constitutional principles set forth in this letter will serve to inform you of the obligations owed by your school district. Please let us know your position on this matter no later than February 13, 2005.
The letter is signed by Matthew B. McReynolds, Esq., Assistant Counsel
Conservative teens say school is biased against them
By Peter Schworm, Boston Globe Staff | February 10, 2005
Soft-spoken and casually dressed, Chris Bowler does not look the part of a political firebrand. But his new conservative club has ignited considerable controversy at Hudson High School.
To advertise the club's first meeting in December, Bowler put up a poster that included the website of a national organization for high school conservative clubs. The page includes links to videos of beheadings by Iraqi insurgents, saying the links are meant to show what terrorists can do.
The posters immediately drew administrators' ire. Within a few hours, the posters were removed and access to the Web page was blocked on school computers. An attempt to display the posters last month was also squelched.
"The material was way beyond what I believe the school should be advertising," said principal John Stapelfeld. "It seemed to be supporting violence more than supporting the conservative message."
Bowler and his supporters believe the response stems from a political bias in the school against conservatism. To them, it's ironic that students should be censored in a school that has won praise for innovative civics and community service programs...snip....
Ping to new articles on Hudson High Conservative Club thread.
School board defies court ruling: Hudson committee's lawyer says superintendent evaluation is private matter
By Carolyn Kessel Stewart / News Staff Writer
Thursday, February 10, 2005
HUDSON -- To keep its superintendent's annual evaluation secret, the School Committee is amassing legal opinions it believes will show the schools' top employee evaluation is a private matter.
The School Committee decided Tuesday night not to make public minutes of a meeting during which Sheldon Berman's review was addressed.
Also kept under wraps are the reviews written by individual School Committee members, even though the records, which were requested by the Daily News, have been deemed public by the Middlesex District Attorney's office.
Richard K. Lodge, editor-in-chief of the MetroWest Daily News, said he was surprised by the School Committee's decision to ask the district attorney's office to look at the matter again.
"It seems the assistant district attorney's opinion was straightforward and what we believe is a correct interpretation of the law. We're disappointed the School Committee plans to delay the process, but we respect their right to appeal to District Attorney Martha Coakley," Lodge said.
The School Committee's lawyer, Bob Fraser of Stoneman, Chandler & Miller, advised the School Committee it would not be violating the Open Meeting Law or the Public Records Law by not handing over records.
Ultimately, the battle could be decided in court, because there is so little legal precedent for this situation, Fraser wrote in his opinion.
This is not the first time someone wanted to know what a School Committee thinks of its superintendent, said Michael J. Long, lawyer for the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents.
"The issue comes up a couple of times a year, typically when either a School Committee person or a political person chooses for whatever reason to expose or disclose the evaluation, or local media wants to pursue the point," Long said.
The MASS has also filed legislation that would allow a School Committee to conduct a superintendent's evaluation in closed session in certain circumstances.
Berman asked Long, who is retained by MASS, to look at his case. The town pays Berman's membership dues to MASS.
Fraser is hired by the town as legal counsel for the School Committee.
Both Long and Fraser cited a 2000 lawsuit to support keeping Berman's review private.
Under Wakefield Teachers' Association vs. School Committee of Wakefield, personnel records are defined as "employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation and promotion demotion or termination information pertaining to a particular employee." And personnel records are private.
"The language in the Wakefield case is crystal clear and beyond dispute," Long said. "I find it hard to understand how the clarity of those words evades the DA's office."
But Assistant District Attorney Sheryl Grant wrote in her opinion letter that because superintendents are hired in a public process and are reviewed by a governmental body, meetings during which their review is discussed must be open to the public, and the records from those meetings must also be public.
Fraser said, however, that because there was no deliberation, no "meeting" took place.
Grant wrongly assumed, he said, that School Committee members discussed Berman's evaluation. In fact, they only handed in their individual evaluations to then-Chairwoman Sheila Ansley, Fraser told the committee.
Even if they had had a discussion, Fraser wrote, that would still fall under the exemption of discussing negotiation strategy.
"It is hard to imagine a School Committee adequately representing the best interests of a town in setting contractual strategy with a current superintendent without discussing in some manner the performance of that superintendent," he wrote. Those records, in his opinion, may remain secret as long as the superintendent or any non-union employee is bargaining with the School Committee.