Bill of Rights Institute

“This [Internet] message was no different than if it was written on a bathroom wall.”

–Lake County Circuit Court Judge Theodore Potkonjak

A pair of recent news articles highlights the difference between speech that may deserve First Amendment protection, and speech that does not. In the first situation, a student went on an online rant about her principal and her school’s body piercing code.  Whether or not you believe that a student’s choice to display piercings in school is protected by the First Amendment, a judge held that her right to rant about it on a semi-private Web page was.

In the second situation, a student’s threat of violence against his high school posted online was not protected by the First Amendment. The threat, which held that many would die and included images of a shotgun and shotgun shells, was so potent that some 500 kids stayed home from school when they learned about it.

How are these situations the same? How are they different? On what issues did the rulings agree? What can we learn about First Amendment applications to different kinds of speech? What do you think? What do your students think?

By the way, you can always find news related to the Bill of Rights on our website, www.BillofRightsInstitute.org/headlines.

I was privileged to sit in as an observer this week at the state finals of the Texas Citizen Bee in Austin, Texas. Eighteen regional representatives from across the state tested their knowledge of Founding Documents, historically significant people and events, Supreme Court jurisprudence and current events shaping American society. The Institute created our Student Study Guide as the reference for these knowledge based questions. The level of knowledge about the civic foundations of America was impressive, but what really struck me was a dicussion held in the afternoon.

The top four students discussed the nature of justice in American society. For just over 20 minutes, these students held an informed, civil, and lively exchange of ideas on a question usually reserved for college political philosophy classes. No teacher, no moderator, just the kids. (Scholastic.com provides a set of  ideas and rules for grades K-8. A high school level set of general discussion guidelines can be found here.) My immediate reaction was simple – why aren’t we doing more of this in the classroom?

Why not challenge the students to frame the next unit’s big question in an introductory discussion among a selected group, followed by Q&A with the whole class? How about wrapping up a unit with small group discussions focused on defining what they believe the most important lessons to take away from the unit? A weekly opportunity to tie what the class is doing to current events? Turning the class over to the students can be a powerful learning tool, why not give it a try?

- Brett Helm

“The legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions.” –Thomas Jefferson 

 The First Amendment protects an absolute freedom of belief. We know that protecting rights of conscience was of  paramount importance to the Founders, and the Supreme Court affirmed this in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). But as Jefferson noted in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, government can exercise just power in restraining certain actions, even if that action is religiously motivated.  This commentary by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center explores the balance between free religious exercise and child welfare, and might make a useful classroom resource. What are the limits of free religious exercise when children are impacted? What do you think? What do your students think?

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach”

Justice Hugo Black,

writing for the majority in Everson v.Board of Education

Its always interesting to revisit phrases and concepts we become comfortable with over time. One of the most recognized phrases in our lexicon of rights is Jefferson’s description of a “wall of separation” between church and state. Understanding historical context allows students to better analyze the application of this simple phrase in America today. The phrase has been part of our legal traditions since 1878 (Reynolds v. United States) and ringingly reasserted above by Justice Black in Everson.

The story of Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists is a fascinating exercise in understanding Jefferson’s idea in context of time and place. The Library of Congress’ research and FBI recovery of the first draft of this letter provide new viewpoints on Jefferson’s purpose in writing to the congregation. Professor Robert Jeffrey of Wofford College gives us another approach to understanding why Jefferson chose this phrase in this short podcast. Professor Daniel Dreisbach of American University brings his analysis to bear in the evaluation of two very different missives to the newly elected president: the letter FROM the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson and the delivery of a “mammoth cheese” from the Baptists of Cheshire, Massachusetts. Take a few minutes to look over what impact a simple letter can have on the history of a nation.

Brett Helm

Over the course of the past nine years, the Institute has had the opportunity to work with outstanding scholars around the country on a range of topics regarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Two of these scholars, Dr. Art Ward of Northern Illinois University and Dr. Kevin Pybas of Missouri State University, created PowerPoint presentations containing a series of free expression quotations (Pybas) and information on several free expression cases (Ward). The links provided give you access to these quotations and case discussions for use in your classrooms, courtesy of the professors. The slides are meant to be adapted for use in your classroom and presented here in a text-only format.

Using PowerPoint is a double edged sword, as we all know. While it can hold the attention of our media soaked audiences, there is a delicate balance to be maintained between passive transmission of information and use of the medium to engage and involve students. Microsoft provides a range of tutorials on how to use PowerPoint in the classroom, but beware the technology trap! The amount of information on a slide, fonts, animations and video inputs can either drive home an important concept or become a show in and of themselves- distracting students from your main points. A perfect non-example of how to use PowerPoint that is relevant to government and history teachers nationwide is Peter Norvig’s satirical take on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Mr. Norvig manages to break nearly every rule of effective communication in six simple slides.

The simplest rule of thumb for using PowerPoint is this: can I still give an effective presentation of this content if all of my technology fails? Feel free to share your thoughts, links and ideas concerning integrating PowerPoint or any other technologies in your teaching in the comments section!

-Brett Helm

A fan’s affectionate enthusiasm should not obscure acts of plagiarism. The publishers knew what they were doing. The problem remains that the Lexicon takes an enormous amount of Ms. Rowling’s work and adds virtually no original commentary of its own. As we’ve said in court, it takes too much and adds too little. Authors have a duty to prevent the exploitation of their works by people who contribute nothing original, creative or interpretive.” — Spokesperson for J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. Entertainment

A claimed right to freedom of expression collides with an author’s claim that her copyrighted work is being co-opted — is Steve Vander Ark, a 50 year old librarian and Harry Potter fan, stealing with his planned Harry Potter Lexicon (an encyclopedia of all things Harry?)

• Where do we draw the line between writing about a work of literature (an endeavor to which entire university departments and leagues of literary critics devote themselves) and merely reproducing that work with little or no original commentary?
• Is Vander Ark’s planned Lexicon a work of plagairism, or a truly original work?
• Do you agree that authors have a “duty to protect their works”? Why or why not?
• What might be the consequences for writers and aspiring writers with the ruling in this case? 

Post script: This article at MTV.com gets through all the legal jargon and helps readers think about terms like “fair use,” “transformative work,” and others used by judges to determine if copyright has been infringed.

BRI just recognized students, teachers and parents from across the country here in Washington, D.C.  We awarded the prizes in our annual Being An American Essay contest. I was privileged to work with the award winning teachers on Friday morning, where they shared their ideas and strategies concerning the contest. One overriding impression - there’s some terrific collaborative efforts going on out there! How else do you explain prize winning teachers whose classes include: Psychology, Journalism, English, World Geography, and Bioethics?

Government and history teachers can open lines of communicatyion and improve student learning across the curriculum by simply reaching out when the opportunity presents itself. The simplest of these is to engage with the English department in teaching writing strategies and skills. But…. why not ask the American Lit teacher to adapt your lesson plan on the Declaration of Independence as a selection for his/her students? How about reaching out to the math department when your students analyze charts and graphs to gain a deeper understanding of the methods used to gather data? Music and art that symbolizes an era or concept can be powerful teaching tools - have you checked down the hall with the fine arts teachers lately? The science department can help you explain the Dustbowl, help students understand environmental issues, and explain the different geology and climate zones and how they impact our country. Great teaching extends across disciplines and throughout our profession - use the best tools you have to reach your students, the teachers in the room next door and down the hall!

-Brett Helm

“[one important purpose of the federal government is to rescue [the United States] from the embarrassing and destructive consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law.” — John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

 ”If New York’s view regarding the scope of its regulatory authority carried the day, another state could be free to enact a law prohibiting the service of soda on flights departing from its airports, while another could require allergen-free food options on its outbound flights, unraveling the centralized federal framework for air travel.” — 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2008

Early federalism cases like Gibbons can have a tendency to make the Commerce Clause seem antiquated and students may struggle to find modern applications, but this article in the New York Times brings to light a situation not unlike the on Marshall was writing about in 1824…this time it’s not laws about steamboats but rather airlines that are involved. New York’s “Passenger Bill of Rights” law, which would have required airlines to provide food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers stuck in delayed planes, was struck down by a federal appeallate Court.

What would be the consequences of states were free to pass their own legal requirements for air carriers? If citizens agree that the requirements of NY’s law were good ones, what others ways (other than passing state laws) exist of compelling airlines to provide these basic services to people on delayed planes? What do you think? What do your students think?

Making it real, connecting to the lives of our students, that’s the main thrust of most of our work as civics and government educators. But what about being able to understand what led us to the place we now stand? The history of the struggle; the challenges faced; the obstacles overcome; aren’t those required to complete the connection of our students to civic life?

“Wherever men have lived there is a story to be told.”

- Henry David Thoreau

I can hear students’ eyes rolling out there … and I know the drill – history isn’t relevant, its just facts, etc, etc – the rote repetition of all the reasons to “hate” learning about it. My question is – do your students enjoy a good story? Can you catch their interest by creating a narrative that draws them in? It’s a simple and effective method of connecting them to history and civic life. Listed below are some great resources for exploring the concept of storytelling as an effective strategy for engaging learners with history and civics.

Story Corps – a site dedicated to personal narratives from everyday people in America

Civil Rights in Mississippi Digital Archive

Making Civics Real: Controversial Public Policy Issues

Storytelling in the Classroom

Storytelling and the Social Studies

Please share yours with other in the comments section!

-Brett Helm

We’re currently in the midst of a ten city sweep that focuses on civic responsibility – not a topic most students enjoy, right? They’ll talk all day about their rights, even take school systems to court over them (see Veronica’s last post on the Washington state case), but “ask not what (their) country can do for (them), but what (they) can do for their country” and watch the discussion fade into a dull murmuring that sounds a lot like my house when I ask someone to take out the trash.

So how to get them interested in the requirements and responsibilities of citizenship? How do you answer the dreaded question “why should I even care about this stuff?”

One of my favorite ways to get them hooked is let them discover how their rights depend on paying attention to their responsibilities. Using their rights as a reason to get involved in civic life is a natural introduction that gives the concept relevance and meaning to most students. What kind of strategies do you employ to bring them on board?

Brett Helm