Theoretically, a parent has a right to withdraw his child and place him in a different school, or school them at home, but that means that parent must either expend money or time and effort to comply with the state's requirement that the child be educated. In effect, unless the parents are willing to pay a forfeit, the child must be in that environment seven hours a day five days a week. Why should the parents have to pay a forfeit for their child to exercise his First Amendment rights?
That is about one third of the child's life and about half of his waking life. That is a huge percentage of existence in which to deprive someone of free speech. And to what end? Is not a school a place where a child is is exposed to the benefits of our Constitution? Is the child to be taught that conformity and censorship are values to be exalted over our First Amendment rights of free speech? What is the educational value of stifling the independence of thought of this young child?
You say there is a school rule prohibiting such free expression and it is merely the enforcement of a rule. So we are to accept that free speech can be circumcised by the government merely because the government makes a rule? What purpose does the rule serve?
You might say that the exercise of free speech will be so discordant as to frustrate the purpose of the school which is to learn. I say it is the job of the administrators of the school to so control the environment that free speech can thrive and the students can still learn. What would the law say if the administrators held that no African-American kids can attend a school because their presence disrupts and makes learning impossible?
The courts would not listen to such an excuse for a minute. They would instruct those administrators to get in there and adjust the environment for the higher value of admitting African-American children. Why do we surrender our precious free speech rights without a struggle?
