THE  GREAT  WHITE  RABBIT  GOES  TO  SCHOOL
—THE  FIRST  AMENDMENT—

print version

In this Bill of Rights lesson, the teacher leads the class narratively through a scenario that attempts to raise questions about all five of the areas protected by the First Amendment. 

Begin the lesson by reviewing the language of the First Amendment, explaining what is meant by each of the five areas:

—freedom of religion, establishment and exercise clauses
—freedom of speech and expression
—freedom of the press
—freedom of assembly
—right to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Also explore the pivotal concept of the tension between government control (and especially the school’s responsibility in loco parentis to provide 1) safety, 2) order, and 3) an effective learning environment) versus private liberty.  Briefly explain how this tension may surface in any of the five areas.  Then ask students to analyze the following scenario with two tasks in mind:

—to identify each area of First Amendment protection as it arises
—to evaluate the conflict between government control and private liberty, seeking to decide what is protected and what not protected under the First Amendment. 

They do this by voting with their feet: that is, for each issue, students step to one side of the room if they view the activity or expression at issue as PROTECTED under the First Amendment, or to the other side of the room if deemed NOT PROTECTED.  Assuming that students have discussed and argued each instance, these takings of sides constitute the class’s court rulings, with the outcome determined by the simple majority.

The teacher’s role is to narrate the scenario scene by scene, all the time asking students to address the two above tasks.  The teacher may also introduce new information or make hypothetical changes in a situation (“What if …?”) in order to lead the students to refine their judgments. 

Court opinions may also be shared where they offer insights.  Among those relevant to this scenario are: Tinker v. Des Moines; Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier; R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.  For details go to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html.

THE  SCENARIO

THE PLACE:  EAGLE RIVER HIGH SCHOOL                          

THE TIME: NOW

One day as Easter is approaching, two students offer little chocolate rabbits to several classmates at one of the school cafeteria tables.  Biting into the hollow bunnies, the classmates discover rolled up inside them tiny texts proclaiming Leporism, a religion in which the Creator is a Great White Rabbit.  Appropriately, the tiny texts list two of the chief beliefs of Leporism: the virtues of peacemaking and the power of an idea as it spreads through society.

As the days pass, the two students continue distributing the chocolate rabbits with the religious texts inside.  While their real names are Charles Brickney and Elizabeth Simpson, they keep referring to themselves by the assumed names of Charles Hare and Elizabeth Hare.  In conversation, they don’t attempt to persuade their classmates to convert to Leporism, but soon the little texts are beginning to be talked about around school.

One day Charles and Elizabeth sit down at lunch next to Timothy and Thomas Cross, twins from a family of deeply religious Christian fundamentalists.  The Cross twins have not yet heard of the Leporists in the school.  The chocolate rabbits are offered, bitten into, and the texts discovered.  A tense religious discussion follows, interrupted only by the bell for sixth period.  Timothy and Thomas leave the chocolate bunnies uneaten, but take the texts home.

The next day, the principal, Mr. Goshawk, receives a visit from the Cross twins’ parents, objecting to what they claim is religious recruiting of their sons by the Leporists, Charles and Elizabeth.  They point out that this is taking place on school grounds during school hours.  Citing the First Amendment protection against any government-established religion, they call on the principal to forbid Charles and Elizabeth from continuing to distribute their religious materials during school.  Mr. Goshawk calls the Leporists into his office and says that they must cease distributing the text-laden rabbits or face suspension.

What part or parts of the First Amendment have come into play?  Call for evaluation of the case so far by students.  Are the Leporists violating the twins’ First Amendment right to be free of government-established religion?  Does Mr. Goshawk’s threat of suspension violate Charles and Elizabeth’s right to exercise their religion?  Is free speech involved?

Within a short period of time, a small group of new adherents to Leporism forms, what Charles and Elizabeth call a “warren.”  The members eat lunch together at the same table every day, and begin to refer to themselves as “the Great White Rabbit’s spiritual robots.”  They accord Charles and Elizabeth, as the sect’s founders, the status of Youth Rabbis, and look to them to preach the peace-loving ways of Leporism.  When asked the source of this new religion, Charles and Elizabeth explain that it has its origins in Rabat, Morocco. 

With the continuing addition of new members, the warren is soon too large to gather around a single cafeteria lunch table.  They ask Ms. Peregrine, an English teacher, if they may meet in her empty classroom next door to the cafeteria during lunch period.  An obliging soul, Ms. Peregrine consents, and even offers to stay in the room—this is her free period—to provide a faculty presence.  Several days later, a group of students approaches Mr. Goshawk to complain about preferential treatment of the Leporists: they are allowed to eat outside the cafeteria while the rest of the students are not.  The Leporists claim they are now a group officially sanctioned by a faculty member.  Word of the dispute travels quickly, and Mr. Goshawk receives a phone call from a local civil libertarian objecting to the school’s sponsoring a religious group.  Mr. Goshawk tells the Leporists that they can no longer meet on school grounds.

Are there any new First Amendment issues?  Does Ms. Peregrine’s offer of a faculty presence for the warren constitute school sponsorship of a religious group?  If so, is this a First Amendment violation of the principle of separation of church and state?  Is the warren actually part of a real religion?  What in fact constitutes a religion?  Are the other students justified in claiming the warren is receiving preferential treatment?  In banning the Leporists from school, is Mr. Goshawk depriving them of their First Amendment right to exercise their religion?  How is their group meeting different from, say, the Chess Club or the Outing Club?

The warren responds to the principal’s banning of their meetings at school with a renewed wave of chocolate bunnies with Leporist texts inside.  The warren no longer meets at school, but its presence is now felt even more strongly in the form of hundreds of chocolate rabbits—each bearing its text—which seem to be multiplying out of control.  Leporists begin wearing t-shirts with rabbits on them which they have ordered from a Wilderness Store catalogue.  As the focus of increased attention, Leporists, acting singly or in pairs, seize every opportunity to promote their peace-loving beliefs.  A few cafeteria table discussions with non-adherents to Leporism escalate into loud arguments.  Finally, a group of jocks comes to school one day, each wearing a t-shirt with the school mascot, the Screaming Eagle.  A shouting match ensues, and is broken up by faculty only after one of the jocks, taunting the Leporists as “funny bunnies,” advocates “a rabbit extermination program.”  Charles and Elizabeth, together with Leporists Wendy Hare, Ian Hare, Molly Hare, Stephanie Hare and Joseph Hare, ask to meet with Mr. Goshawk.  They demand that he restrain what they describe as the “hate speech” and death threats of the jocks. 

What First Amendment issues are surfacing now?  Are the wave of chocolate rabbits and the rabbit t-shirts—again permitted or at least not forbidden—violations of the establishment clause of the First?  How are they different, if at all, from the jocks’ wearing Screaming Eagle t-shirts?  If the difference is that one belongs to a religious group and the other an athletic group, where exactly is the dividing line between the two kinds of groups?  Do the jocks, like the Leporists, hold collective beliefs and share common values?  Do the jocks’ taunts and veiled extermination threats rise to the level of “hate speech”?  If Mr. Goshawk seeks to restrain the jocks, is he violating their First Amendment right to free speech?

Last year’s varsity track team won the state championship, so the school schedules a pep rally to start the spring season.  For several days before the evening rally, which is to include a bonfire, students are hard at work in the school’s art room painting banners that say things like “GO EAGLES – SEIZE YOUR PREY!!” and “VICTORY IS IN OUR TALONS!!”  On the night of the rally, the Leporists show up with their own banners proclaiming “EAGLES LOVE TO KILL; RABBITS LOVE PEACE” and “EAGLES ARE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES.”   In no time the rally turns into a confrontation.  Jocks grab the Leporists’ banners and throw them into the bonfire.  A shoving match breaks out and several Leporists are thrown to the ground.  The co-captains of the track team and their coach, Mr. Harrier, try to calm everyone down, but things have already gotten out of control.  Only the presence of two off-duty police officers prevents the rally from turning into a riot.

How is the First Amendment engaged now?  What should the police officers do?  The next morning, what should Mr. Goshawk do?  Is there any merit to the Leporists’ claim that the Screaming Eagles’ banners constitute hate speech?  Is the throwing of the Leporists to the ground assault?  Is it a hate crime?

The school’s student newspaper, The Flaming Eagle, is set to come out a week later.  There are pictures and a story from the rally, plus an editorial that questions the value of school mascots, at least when they seem to lead to such conflict within the school community.  Ms. Peregrine, who is also the faculty advisor to the paper, submits a draft of the newspaper to Mr. Goshawk for his approval, as called for by school board policy.  Mr. Goshawk rules that neither the pictures of the melee at the rally nor the editorial will be permitted to be printed.  He says they are both destructive to order in the school, and likely to provoke further incidents among students.  He invokes his responsibility to maintaining student safety at all times.  The same local civil libertarian who before objected to Leporism seeming to receive school sponsorship now writes a letter to the local newspaper challenging the right of the school to—in his view—suppress the editorial challenging violent mascots.  His letter now seems to endorse the rights of Leporists.

How does the First Amendment apply now?  What of Mr. Goshawk’s defense of censorship in the name of public safety?  How can the civil libertarian argue both for and against the rights of Leporists?
 
The Leporists themselves, led by Charles and Elizabeth—who have both been studying the Bill of Rights in their Advanced Placement Government class—decide to take legal action.  They approach the Maine affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union and ask them to take up their case against 1) the school’s banning their group’s activities from school grounds and 2) the school’s censorship of the Flaming Eagle’s editorial and photo coverage of the tumultuous rally.  The MCLU convenes its Legal Panel to consider what action, if any, they will take.

If you were on the Legal Panel of the MCLU, what would be your decision on each of the two requests before you?  What is your reasoning in each case?  What should finally determine if the MCLU takes these or any cases?