South Lyon High School's underground newspaper, The First Amendment, trumpets itself as the best means to challenge the school's administrators and prevailing opinions. However, this mission was attacked when the publication earned the harsh retribution of the school's administrators who suspended four students for attempting to distribute the newspaper. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a suit against the school in response to the punishments which has chilled the students' ability to express their beliefs. The suit rightfully argues that the the high school violated the constitutional right of its students to publish and distribute their ideas.

In South Lyon, students began the newspaper partially in response to faculty supervision and control of the school-sponsored newspaper. The First Amendment offered a venue for students to express their often unpopular opinions, ranging from criticisms of stereotypical Arab and Muslim jokes to arguments against standardized tests, such as the Michigan Educational Assessment Program. Without the administration involved, writers and editors were able to freely state and argue for their beliefs. The First Amendment provided an alternate forum that was otherwise absent at the school.

The ACLU's challenge rests on excellent legal ground. The Supreme Court established the relevant caselaw in two cases, 1988's Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier and 1969's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court affirmed that the threshold for expressive behavior cannot be limited "without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others." In Hazelwood, the court upheld the right of schools to limit content in a school-sponsored publication in extremely specific circumstances. However, Justice Byron White's majority opinion explicitly states students "cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises." The applicable law clearly shows the school is at fault.

While the courts will overturn the school's decision, it is particularly troubling that the administrators sought to suppress the opinions of its students. The criticisms of publication may have been bothersome to administrators, but as educators, they should understand that these dissenting opinions are the lifeblood of a robust educational institution.

These rights are especially relevant in high schools where many students shy away from controversy and refrain from expressing contrarian or provocative views. Engagement with these ideas provides students with an education that they are unable to find solely within the classroom and encourages them to be actively involved with their education. The arguments and debates that dissenting views generate prepare students for civil life in a democratic society. This preparation is a responsibility of our schools that should not be shirked or dismissed as insignificant.