Let’s go back a bit…
These Founding Father guys got together in Philadelphia in 1787…
Wait, wait! Don’t let your eyes glaze over. It’s a fascinating story—it really is!—and I hope you read all about it someday, if you haven’t already. (Yes, I know from letters and e-mails to the Factor that some of you are just amazingly knowledgeable about history and politics, and I don’t forget that.)
But I’m not going to tell that story in these pages.
What I want you to think about—and it’s SAD how many adults forget this basic fact—is that your rights were written down more than two centuries ago.
Not only were there no iPods then, there were no…Well, you name it: Look around your room, or your house, or the shopping mall. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the guys would be stunned if you somehow zipped them through time to our world today.
And it’s not just the gadgets, look at the people. Every census shows remarkable changes in age, national heritage, language, and so forth among the Americans around you.
This is not 1787. Back then Americans ate parsnips. Had any of those lately? Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would not believe what we are eating today! Have a taco, boys. How about some sushi? Pizza with mozzarella?
The point is, times have really changed in just about every way. Except, that is, for our rights. But even those are subject to new rulings based upon the modern age. And that fact can make your life confusing. New technology means kids have more access to “stuff” than any other kids in history.
But the most important difference for you and your rights is that IDEAS have changed since 1787.
You know some of the obvious ones. Back then, the creators of the Constitution—again, the basis for all American rights, the supreme law of the land—did not set down for women a right to vote. They also did not set down guarantees for full citizenship for African-Americans. They even allowed slavery. Not good. And the entire country paid the price later in the bloody Civil War.
INTERLUDE OF RANTING: Hey, why should I respect the U.S. Constitution if it disrespects me? Huh? Am I included if I’m a woman? No way. Or if I’m African-American? No, no, no! Or if I’m not a property owner? What can that old rag mean to me in my life today?
Okay, so that’s the puzzle right there.
How does this old set of rules keep working?
And does it really?
If you watch my TV program or listen to my radio program, you know that people are arguing about that question all over the country.
So let’s join in…
Has your American-history teacher ever told you that dinosaurs were given a berth on Noah’s Ark during the Great Flood described in the Old Testament? Did he or she ever tell you that you belong in hell if you don’t believe in the message of Jesus?
You are amazed by my questions. “Has O’Reilly lost his mind at last?” you ask (to yourself, I hope).
Well, in a high school in New Jersey, an American-history teacher said these things and many more that, you would think, have nothing to do with the official class subject. Moreover, you could say that these statements are pretty good evidence of religious fanaticism.
How do we know for sure that the teacher said these things? Because sixteen-year-old Matthew LaClair taped these remarks in class (thereby becoming a part of American history himself). He thought it was his right to be taught American history, not fundamentalist Christian ideas.
Can you guess what happened next? I couldn’t have. The teacher was replaced by another but assigned to teach the same subject to a new group of students. The school board banned taping in all classes without prior permission from the teacher. Some of Matthew’s classmates got angry that the tapes appeared on the Internet and on TV, in effect airing their voices without their permission. Matthew alleges that the school did not step in to keep other kids from harassing him. He received a death threat.
There’s more, but that’s enough. Matthew’s family is now suing the local board of education, and the beat goes on.
Is this a case of one courageous kid standing up for his rights to free speech? The “free speech” in this case, of course, is going public about the teacher’s comments. Is this (also?) a case of one boy defending freedom of religion, meaning that he doesn’t have to listen in school to material that is associated with Christian fundamentalism?
Maybe it started out that way, but now it’s one heck of a mess. New rules, lawyers on both sides, angry quotes in the press, kids choosing up sides. To me, the lesson is pretty clear. The teacher was way over the line, but Matthew’s unusual action stoked the fire. His classmates may be acting badly, but they felt they were dragged into something they didn’t want to become involved in. School officials may talk the talk about keeping religion out of the classroom, but they are steaming because the whole thing got so much public attention. (And this book is another example of that!)
As I’ve said before, sometimes it’s better all around—better for your friends and your school and your community—if you try tact first. Matthew said the recordings were necessary because, otherwise, officials would not believe him. Maybe he’s right. We’ll never know. Maybe the officials would have covered the behind of the teacher, a fourteen-year-veteran. Again, we’ll never know.
What we do know is that a lot of people are angry, and it looks as if neither side, so far, is happy with the outcome. Matthew’s a kid like you, and he’ll learn a lot from this. I hope he learns only good things. And I hope you learn that conflict like this should be thoughtfully, skillfully avoided.
In my opinion, Matt should have kept his tapes private, using them as notes. He should have stated his objections clearly and calmly to school administrators, and if they did not believe him, then he should have let them hear the taped remarks in private.
Going public with the tapes should have been the very last resort. If Matthew had taken the steps I suggest, I believe he would have won an early victory.
!THIS JUST IN!
Months later, there was a final (one hopes) footnote to all of this.
In a settlement between the LaClair family and the town board of education—one of those agreements, by the way, in which no one admits any “wrongdoing” in the matter under debate—Matthew won two points.
The board decided to ask the state’s chapter of the Anti-Defamation League to begin teaching both students and their teachers about the need for public schools to keep ideas of church and state separate.
Also, the board offered to praise publicly Matthew’s “courage and integrity” while the kid’s parents in turn agreed to applaud that body for its actions.
After all of this was over, the boy himself felt that he had learned “how hard it can be sometimes to go against the grain, and that a lot of times, even though things may be tough, you still have to go through with it and finish it.”
Sounds good. I’m okay with that. But I still recommend cool heads over hot words, whenever that’s possible. When two sides have to agree to commend each other in public, that’s ridiculous.