Share This Page

Cheering free speech

| Monday, Nov. 5, 2012, 8:53 p.m.

Cheerleaders in Kountze, Texas, recently learned an invaluable lesson about the Constitution and the importance of individual expression without government censorship. Ironically, it's a lesson they had to watch a court teach their school district.

Controversy arose this fall when the cheerleaders at Kountze High School decided to model good sportsmanship by replacing the often-violent messages on their banners, such as “Scalp the Indians,” with encouraging religious messages. The only complaints came from an anti-religion advocacy group more than 1,000 miles away. In response, the Kountze superintendent issued an unlawful directive banning all such religious speech.

The cheerleaders sued their school district to preserve their rights to free speech and religious expression. Two weeks ago a Texas court issued a temporary injunction allowing the cheerleaders to display their banners for at least the remainder of the season. Free speech prevailed, reminding us of the well-established principle that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

People from all political persuasions should be celebrating this decision. Many are mistakenly arguing, however, that the outcome is incorrect because the Supreme Court struck down school-sponsored prayer at football games in the 2000 case Santa Fe v. Doe. But Santa Fe recognized that “there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

In Santa Fe, the court held that a school policy that created a majoritarian election on religion and explicitly encouraged prayer created government speech. Conversely, in this case, both Texas law and the school's policies affirm that when students speak at school events, they are engaging in private speech and their views do not reflect the position of the school. Indeed, the policies at issue in Kountze create a forum for student speech and require the school district to remain neutral toward all viewpoints.

The Kountze cheerleaders alone decide what message to place on their banners. The team is student-run, with school officials present only to monitor safety. Each week two cheerleaders take turns leading the team, including choosing whether to create banners and, if so, what messages they should bear. The supplies to create the banners are paid for with private funds, as are the cheerleaders' uniforms, further demonstrating the private nature of their speech.

High school students' rights to free speech should be robustly protected. These students are nearly adults; they are about to enter college, military service or the workforce. Schools should be teaching students about the First Amendment and the free marketplace of ideas, including that other individuals may advocate for messages with which they disagree, instead of censoring speech that some might find offensive. Otherwise, our schools do a great disservice to students and fail to prepare them to be citizens of our free society.

Nonetheless, the character of the Kountze cheerleaders should give us hope for the future. With young adults like these ready to respectfully stand for our Constitution, our freedoms are more secure.

Jeffrey Mateer is general counsel of Liberty Institute, a national legal organization that seeks to defend and restore religious liberty. Erin Leu, a constitutional attorney at Liberty Institute, represents the Kountze cheerleaders in Matthews v. Kountze I.S.D.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.