bayonne free speech buttons

i teach street law every summer at the paterson ymca to a group of teens enrolled in a leadership and job training program. and every summer i teach, i hear the same stories of racial profiling, endless terry stops, illegal searches (T.L.O. standard) and a lack of due process for disciplinary hearings and suspensions at school.

we discuss a variety of issues, mainly how to know their rights. we spend time debating search and seizure concepts, the limits of free speech and the meaning of due process. i love teaching street law -- it's always a challenge for me to prepare interesting lessons, create a dynamic class setting and engage students who don't have the luxury i possess as a white, middle-class person.

last week, i read about a recent case decision involving students in bayonne, nj that will certainly add a new twist to our studies on protesting, the first amendment and the tinker standard.

the student press law center offered the following summary:

Two students — a fifth-grader and a seventh-grader — can wear buttons with the phrase “No School Uniforms” over a background picture of the Hitler Youth, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. The court held that because the buttons were not disruptive, the Bayonne School District's censorship was “unwarranted.” Karin R. White Morgen, the students’ attorney, said it was a “wonderful” decision for student free speech. “The school will think twice before it suspends students for wearing honest buttons,” she said. “You are allowed to have an opinion, even in grammar school.” read the opinion here.

The case dates back to November 2006, when two students at two different schools in the district — fifth-grader Michael DePinto and seventh-grader Anthony LaRocco — wore buttons with a red circle and slash through the words “No School Uniforms.” The words were superimposed over an image of rows of young boys in uniforms. While the image contained no visible swastikas or specific Nazi references, both sides agreed that the picture featured members of the Hitler Youth. In response, administrators sent letters to the students’ parents warning that their sons would be punished if they continued to wear the button. Both sets of parents joined in the lawsuit, claiming their children’s First Amendment rights were violated.

House Passes Legislation for Loan Repayment

The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which passed 273-149, in the House of Representatives also calls for investing in minority institutions, controlling repayment rates and creating loan-forgiveness programs, among other actions. The legislation includes items such as:

• Guaranteeing that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15% of their discretionary income in loan repayments
• Increasing federal loan limits
• Providing upfront tuition assistance to undergraduates who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need subject areas
• Providing loan forgiveness for first responders
• Allowing public servants to have their loans forgiven after 10 years
• Investing in minority institutions, guaranteeing $500 million over five years
• Increasing Pell Grants
  

This is a huge step forward for college students. The bad news Bush threatened a veto because to put it bluntly there is not much of a payoff to private corporations. The Sallie Mae of the world will not get their fair share. The House did not get enough votes to override a veto.

Personally, for me the loan repayment aspect is great news. The measure would provide loan forgiveness of $5,000 for graduates who go into public service professions. It also would forgive outstanding debt for borrowers who have made 10 years of monthly repayments on their loans while serving in full-time government or nonprofit jobs.

"What we are seeing is increasing debt load for a broader set of graduates," said Max Stier, president of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, on Wednesday. "Unfortunately, people are likely to have debt for more than 10 years. This is a good incentive for people to stay on the public service road."

Further, for marriage advocates the measure would also correct "a severe marriage penalty" by combining the incomes of both spouses so that the amount the borrower must pay may increase vastly. The bill would attribute only half of a couple's income to each spouse. Maybe marriage could be worth it?

But, listen to George Miller a great democrat from California who gives the real reason the Corporate Republicans and the administration is against the bill. The administration's criticism said that the bill would increase financial aid expenses by $20 billion. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said the measure actually would be cost-neutral, because the money would come from cuts to what he called "excessive subsidies" to financial institutions participating in the student loan program. You know the people currently resigning and under investigation throughout the country.

This is a bill that is fair and well overdue. George Miller said "the legislation as the biggest investment in students since President Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI Bill into law in 1944, enabling 7.8 million veterans of World War II to participate in education or job training programs.

See a very good analysis of the bill here.