Student Rights; for better or for worse?

By JOHN MAVERICK GALANG

We all know that Student rights are those rights which protect students, here meaning those persons attending schools, universities and other educational institutions. The level of rights accorded to students, whether legally or by convention, varies considerably around the world. Students in public higher education have substantially greater rights than students in primary and secondary education. First, the vast majority of students in public higher education are legal adults; thus, the state does not stand in loco parentis in relation to them, as they are their own guardians, possessing the same rights that all citizens have. In addition, public universities and colleges like the Romblon State University (RSU) is an institution dedicated to the free exchange of ideas, the concept of academic freedom, and the concept of shared governance. This translates to the fact that free speech and participation in governance of the institution by students is common.

Students rights' in the context of higher education often extends to concepts like (1) the right to form groups of their choosing to express their views, and receive funding for them and (2) the right to speak freely, assemble, and demonstrate. Then, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

The action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of every student.

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school, the prohibition cannot be sustained.

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are “persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. School officials cannot suppress ‘expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend.’