On November 1st, approximately 35 students at Morton West High School in Berwyn, IL staged a sit-in in the school cafeteria. Reports are that around 25 of the students locked arms and refused to move when they were ask to.

As I read stories about this, I can only wonder what Avery Doninger would have to say. Over the past several months, she has learned a lot about what sort of speech is allowed to students, in what locations, and under what conditions.

An article in the Chicago Suburban News uses the word ‘disrupt’ in one form or another half a dozen times to describe the protest. “Officials say their actions disrupted the educational process” the article reports.

The event took place in the school cafeteria, where so many important lessons are learned. The administrations reaction to the protest was to lock down the school and call in the police. One has to wonder if it was the students actions that were disrupting the educational process, or an over reaction by the administration that disrupted the educational process.

The article quotes Rita Maniotis, head of the PTO and parent of one of the protesters as saying, “We don’t want this to come to a lawsuit, but we don’t think it’s appropriate that these children be expelled.”

The article refers to a statement by Superintendent Nowakowski which says,

“Not only do students have a right to express themselves on matters of conscience but we encourage them to do so. In this instance, it is critical to note that the Morton administration did not say that the students could not protest. Rather, we asked that the students simply move their protest to an area of the school that would not disrupt the ability of the other 3,400 students at Morton West to proceed with their normal school day.”

Yet trying to make sure that students can proceed with their normal school day is substantially different with the standards about students’ freedom of speech concerning a substantial disruption of pedagogical intent and this will likely become a key part of this case as it proceeds to court.

Instead, the message that Superintendent Nowakowski seems to be promoting is that of ‘Freedom of Speech Zones”. Yes, students have the right to free speech, and he seems suggest that free speech shouldn’t circumscribed by whether it substantially disrupts the pedagogical intent, but whether or not it is convenient. It is a dangerous trend, runs counter to our history of embracing freedom of speech.

I do hope that Superintendent Nowakowski handles this case better than Superintendent Schwartz has handled Avery Doninger’s case. I look forward to visiting the Second Circuit of Appeals on Avery’s case, but I don’t think I can justify flights out to Chicago.