February 1, 2005
SO COMMONSENSICAL THEY SCARE THE OLD FOLK:
First Amendment no big deal, students say: Study shows American teenagers indifferent to freedoms (The Associated Press, Jan. 31, 2005)
The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.
The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.
“These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,” said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. “Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation’s future.”
The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.
When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.
The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn’t know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.
Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It’s not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can’t.
Because they haven't had years and years of exposure to the tortured reasoning of the Courts, these kids hold the view of the Constitution that prevailed for the first hundred fifty years of the Republic. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 1, 2005 7:28 AM
Don't you find it funny that someone commissions a study about the First Amendment and then says, "The results are dangerous"?
Maybe he should have suppressed it.
Posted by: Randall Voth at February 1, 2005 8:40 AMI liked: "The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says."
Perhaps the authors could consider that it is they themselves who are instead too permissive, not everyone else too restrictive?
Posted by: oj at February 1, 2005 8:47 AMWhen asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.
Twenty years of hearing about hate speech laws may also have something to do with this result, though folks like HC III wouldn't be able to connect liberals' efforts to restrict the First Amendment with the polling results that show teens think its no big deal to restrict the First Amendment. But then when you're dealing with a former Carter Administration official, the term "clueless" just fits naturally.
Posted by: John at February 1, 2005 9:25 AM"Unpopular views" is a term of art, meaning lefty slogans that were controversial forty or fifty years ago: the US is an imperial nation; we are the root of all suffering in the world; the profit motive is evil; the Vietcong/Cuban revolutionaries/Shining Path/Sandinistas/Al Qaeda are peaceful agrarians not unlike the Founding Fathers, etc. Let these kids start to read aloud from any given Brothers Judd post and watch how swift is the retribution from their teachers and principals.
Posted by: David Cohen at February 1, 2005 9:54 AMI have a different take on this. In the business world, there is a phrase. "what gets focused on gets done."
Though the teachers and principals polled "high" in their views, the fact is that public education's goal over the last few decades has been to destroy respect for the first amendment.
This is evidenced by the early years' "self-esteem" nonsense to the later years'GSLN shock troops expunging all speech regarding maintaining mores.
These numbers would not be what they were if the schools taught that the 1st Amerndment is important.
What IS important to the educational establishment is that the 1st Am. is undermined even more.
Posted by: bb at February 1, 2005 9:57 AMDavid:
Speaking of which, mt son's 2nd grade teacher stumbled into the site while looking for stuff about John Kerry and was just horrified.
Posted by: oj at February 1, 2005 11:10 AMHorrified by Kerry's vapidity, or by the robust nature of this site?
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 1, 2005 12:09 PMWell, I thought she might have been jolted into something better, especially after seeing the name at the top. :)
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 1, 2005 1:29 PMOJ: I've yet to have a real-life/Brothers Judd crossover moment. Anticipation . . .
Posted by: David Cohen at February 1, 2005 3:34 PMDavid:
They're always surprised that there's no stench of brimstone surrounding you.
Posted by: oj at February 1, 2005 3:46 PMOJ:"mt son's 2nd grade teacher"
Should that read "my son's 2nd grade teacher?"
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 1, 2005 7:28 PMThey always rebel against the old folks.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 1, 2005 7:33 PMYeah, the American Legion hasn't kicked any Pietists to death for a couple generations now. Don't you just hate that?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 2, 2005 7:02 PM