In a concurrence to the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” decision announced this morning, Justice Clarence Thomas announced that he believes public school students have no First Amendment free speech rights at all. Nobody else on the Court agreed with him, but it’s a fascinating window into his mind.

Although colonial schools were exclusively private, public education proliferated in the early 1800’s. By the time the States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, public schools had become relatively common…. If students in public schools were originally understood as having free-speech rights, one would have expected 19th-century public schools to have respected those rights and courts to have enforced them. They did not.

But I thought originalists were interested in the original understanding of the Constitution’s framers or in the original meaning of the Constitution’s language. The practices of people in the early 1800s, even if those people were closer in time to the Constitution than we are, do not hold the same precedential value. This is a stretch.

Thomas also writes, and appears to endorse, the following (citations deleted):

Like their private counterparts, early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled “a core of common values” in students and taught them self-control. Schools punished students for behavior the school considered disrespectful or wrong. Rules of etiquette were enforced, and courteous behavior was demanded. To meet their educational objectives, schools required absolute obedience.

In short, in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order.

He later writes, “To be sure, our educational system faces administrative and pedagogical challenges different from those faced by 19th-century schools. And the idea of treating children as though it were still the 19th century would find little support today.” Yet it doesn’t seem to change his mind.

But this is what really riles me:

But I see no constitutional imperative requiring public schools to allow all student speech. Parents decide whether to send their children to public schools [citation deleted]. If parents do not like the rules imposed by those schools, they can seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move. Whatever rules apply to student speech in public schools, those rules can be challenged by parents in the political process.

The idea that Thomas believes everyone is rich enough to send their kids to public schools, or rich enough to have one parent stay at home and home school the kids, or rich enough to move elsewhere, pisses me off.

Actually… the more I read his concurrence, the more I realize that the general thrust makes sense: school should be a place of discipline. But the idea that a school board should have unbridled power to prohibit students from saying anything at all about anything? Including engaging in debate on the issues of the day? Come on.

It’s just nutty.

Jere writes:

We saw two protesters along the way holding signs telling us how much God hates gays, etc. Boo Hoo. […] It always seems to me that these sorts of people are so very unhappy. Whenever I see hate groups protesting gay issues or such things, I’m always struck by how miserable and unhappy they seem. While, in contrast, most gay people are perfectly happy with much of their lives and a day like today is all about joy and happiness and inclusiveness.

I like that.

Hope the rest of you New Yorkers had a good Pride day. We watched the parade from the shady front steps of our building on 8th Street, joined by Mike, our friend Dan, and some others. I saw MAK ride by on a float and Steven helping lead off the parade with a big mess of rainbow balloons.

It’s weird how my experience of the Pride parade has changed since I attended my first one in 2001. Actually, I marched in that first one, with 20something.

The next year I watched with some UVA alums.

In 2003 I met up with a friend/quasi-romantic interest of mine.

In 2004 I watched it with Matt, and someone marching with God’s Love We Deliver left the march and ran up to us because he recognized us from our blogs.

Since 2005 (photos), we’ve watched it from our place on 8th Street.

It’s weird how my experience of the parade has become more domesticated over the years. At my first parade I was experiencing it all for the first time, I was single, and I was amazed to march past throngs of people. By this point, I’ve seen a few parades, I’ve got Matt, and (for now at least) we live on the parade route.

Happy (belated) Pride!

Sometimes I wonder if I should believe in God.

Not “should” in a moral or mandatory sense. “Should” in the sense of, maybe it would make my life better. But it’s absurd to believe in something merely for utilitarian reasons, because it means that you don’t really believe it at all – you’re just using the belief as a tool. I wish I could believe in God, because it would be so nice to have an afterlife. Existence would be so comforting if I believed in God. But I just don’t. For me, it would be like trying to believe that a square has three sides. I can’t believe something if it’s not true. I trust my senses more than my hopes.

Lately, I’ve been thinking that the reason it would be helpful to believe in God is because I tend to look at the downside of everything. I want perfection in life. Particularly, lately I want to find the perfect career, and I don’t know if such a career exists. Even if I were pursuing my passion, there would be imperfections, annoyances, stresses, the possibility of failure. I think one of my problems is that while other people are willing to accept imperfections in their lives, which leads them to lower expectations and greater happiness, I’m not like that. I’m always looking at what’s missing, I’m always looking at the negatives.

I think it’s because I feel, in some sense, that the negatives are my fault. There’s a little inner parent telling me that if I were doing a better job in life, if I were working harder at life, then those negatives wouldn’t be there. Part of me is still caught in my kindergarten classroom, where I was king and everything was perfect because perfection was easy to achieve, especially for me. But it’s a long way from being able to recite the months of the year backwards to succeeding at adult life.

If I believed in God, then I would know that perfection existed. It would free me from looking for perfection in this life, because I’d know either (1) that a perfect being already existed and I didn’t have to be that person, or (2) that I’d eventually experience perfection myself in oneness with God.

I’d also know I’d have an afterlife, which would make me less worried about growing old, time passing, being unable to achieve my goals, eventual death, and being forgotten.

Unfortunately, I can’t get myself to believe in God, so I’m going to have to find another way to deal.