Schooling and the 1st amendment

 Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I want to take a look at the impact the schools have on four things that I can associate with the first amendment of the constitution. The most obvious will be freedom of speech. Since schools frequently have school newspapers, I can address freedom of the press. Consequences placed on children who defy their teachers could be viewed as an issue with the right to assemble. I also want to go into a possible interpretation of the amendment that raises serious issues with how the schools deny children freedom of thought.

During our school years, we are trained to talk only when asked to talk. Teachers demand that students focus on the subjects being taught. If a child is being mistreated or outright harmed by teachers, that child does not have much options within the schools. If a student speaks up in his own defense, he is considered to be out of line and is likely to face discipline.

Some people might want to compare this to a business. Most jobs would never approve of anyone using their time on the clock to ridicule the business. There are a couple key differences here. For starters, businesses are paying their workers. I actually agree that businesses should not have to pay someone who is criticizing them on the clock. Students, by contrast, are forced to attend with no legitimate form of compensation.

Another difference between schools and businesses is that people have significantly more rights in choosing where they work. I strongly oppose the idea that children are forced into a school without having a say just to be prohibited from speaking their minds.

Another argument that can be made in support of the schools is that going to school does not mean that they have to remain silent at all times. They can always speak their minds at home. Of course, this relies on the idea that what is said at home never makes it to a student's teachers. A lot of students fear those consequences and hold back even at home.

I could bring social networking into this. Although I am not a big fan of social networking, this is something that can provide an outlet for people to speak up. Since teachers can frequently see what a student posts, there can be serious consequences for saying anything in that kind of a public space. Freedom of speech was not granted so that we can say anything as long as nobody can hear. Teachers should have absolutely no right to sensor children when they are at home, but this unethical profession is not above punishing children for what they say outside of the classroom.

Another big issue here is that they schools are training children to censor themselves. They are essentially being trained to avoid speaking if doing so goes against what people in positions of power want people to believe. What we experience in school can very well convince us to abandon freedom of speech once we reach adulthood.

School newspapers have become commonplace, so that is another area that we need to examinet. School newspapers have student reporters with teacher oversight. What can be written has to be approved by teachers. I can assure you that teachers are not supportive of articles that raise questions regarding the true consequences of their teachers' actions. If a student tries to write something like that, they will be censored. Again, there is a big concern with the future. Reporters are more likely to accept controls in regards to what they write thanks to the schools.

The right to assemble is a little trickier. I don't think that I can make an argument that students need to be allowed to disrupt other classes. Like freedom of speech, there is a big concern about what happens outside of the classroom. If students protest unjust actions from their teachers, they are almost certain to face disciplinary actions. Of course, the views of the teachers depend heavily on what is being protested.

Teachers have always been quick to embrace student participation in illegal teacher strikes. Most students fear being seen on the opposite side. Whether or not it is acceptable for a child to join a protest depends strictly on the nature of the protest. If the teachers agree with a cause, it's honorable and a validation of the cause. If the teacher disagrees with a cause, the child's voice must be silenced. The first amendment was not designed to allow people to pick and choose when others have a right to assemble.

I have repeatedly stated that freedom of thought is more fundamental than freedom of speech. If we all thought in an identical manner, freedom of speech would become irrelevant. After all, why do you need to specify that you have freedom of speech if we feel that your thoughts will never stray from what society views as acceptable? I consider freedom of speech to imply freedom of thought.

I have already made several arguments about how the schools are definitively harming the ability of children to think for themselves. I don't want to spend too much time repeating myself, so let me summarize. Good grades rely on thinking what your teachers want you to think. Fearful of the consequences of bad grades, most students embrace the idea of turning to others to tell them what to think. They stop thinking for themselves. This is something that can be seen if you take a look at such things as our drastic decline in our rate of progress and tendency to follow what's popular (Super Bowl, this was true of Seinfeld, "Gone viral," etc.) rather than personally interesting.

To me, the first amendment makes something very clear. Our schooling system is unconstitutional. They take away the rights of children and train them to abandon those rights when they reach adulthood. Of course, I'm not done. There are some other components of the constitution that also defy what the schools are doing to innocent children.