Sunday, April 12, 2015
Public Schools Pro Life?
Students for Life of America (SFLA) is the largest youth pro-life organization in the nation. Their mission is to advocate for preborn rights and ultimately abolish abortion. Katie Mcpherson and Brigid O’Keefe are both sophomores who have tried to bring SFLA to their schools. The school administrators from Davis and Fargo North High School have denied their requests to bring this group on campus. The schools classified this organization as an outside agency, which violates the no-solicitation policy. This policy prohibits students, staff, and faculty from seeking to obtain membership or support of any organization through school resources. The club cannot incorporate the school’s name in any activities, pamphlets, or events.
Kristen Hawkins, the president of SFLA, and the supporting students believe this is a form of discrimination. The North Dakota school district is being sent a request letter to reverse their disapproval as a warning. They believe the district’s decision infringes on the student’s first amendment rights and the Equal Access Act. Public schools cannot discriminate against any student run group. They believe that the no-solicitation policy applies to the exploitation of business, not to censor the student’s free speech. Jocelyn Floyd, the Thomas More Society associate, states that the topic of abortion is a controversial issue for schools. Schools are fearful of the negative publicity and tension it may bring to the school environment. Floyd continued to state that the Supreme Court has emphasized that students do not lose their freedom of speech just because they are on school’s premises.
This is an exceptional case because for the first time SFLA has experienced district wide discrimination. The SFLA club is on 300 high school campuses and has been persistent in persuading schools to allow student’s facilitation of the organization. Their ultimate goal is to spread awareness about the pro-life message to not only high school students, but to all people. The SFLA advocates feel that the school’s disproval of their program is prohibiting them from spreading their views.
The Pro Life debate has many political and religious ties and is understandably an avoided topic of discussion. The articled brought up how some administration and faculty may have strong opposing views on the pro-life versus pro-choice debate. I understand how the school may view this club as a catalyst of controversial debate on their campus. The school has an obligation to keep their students safety at best interest. However I don’t agree that fear of campus tension is a valid reason to disallow this organization from sharing their views on abortion.
I believe that every student should have the right to share their views on campus. Their first amendment rights should never be compromised. However, the school’s interest in maintaining neutrality can somewhat override the student’s request to bring organizations on campus. They are worried about their sponsorship of such a programs. When a club organization is allowed by school administration, they are funded by the school. Essentially the school’s name is attached to the organizations they sponsor on campus.
I think the school should find a way to adhere to the students wants while maintaining neutrality to such a controversial topic. Maybe instead of sponsoring the club, they can allow students to have an open forum about their views on their topic. To avoid advancing a side, the North Dakota district should allow both prolife and prochoice organizations as clubs. This way, the school is not prohibiting the students from having or sharing their opinions. Another option is to allow students to facilitate meetings by fundraising their own money or facilitating meetings with outside sponsorship. This would eliminate any suspicion that the school favors any opinions about the debate. One misconception about freedom of speech is that everyone is able to say anything without consequence. Although the students have the right and opportunity to support whatever views they have, they cannot put the school in a position that entangles in political views with a publicly funded program.
I think the no-solicitation claim is flawed in that the organization would not be exploited on the school’s campus. However, it is unconstitutional for a public school to be entangled with religious or political views such as this debate. I think if this conflict was taken to court, the schools would be granted the authority to choose which clubs were permitted on campus. Ultimately, cases like these prove that our rights are not always absolute.
What do you think? Should the organization be permitted on campus?
Tags:
0 Responses to “Public Schools Pro Life?”
Post a Comment