Expelling Huck Finn Argumentative Essay

The First Amendment was written with the intention of giving everyone in the United States the right to freedom of expression. This intention will not be fully met as long as parents and other adults feel the need to censor and control what children read, say, and do. Should children have full First Amendment rights, or should they have a more limited form of the First Amendment? Nat Hentoff, a free-speech activist and historian, Janet Judge, president of Sports Law Associates LLC, and Simon Brown, Assistant Director of Communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, are all prominent figures in the argument of children’s First Amendment rights. Hentoff argues that classical literature containing racist remarks should

not be removed from compulsory reading lists of K-12 students; Mary Lou Santovec uses testimony from Judge to assert that student athletes should not be banned from social media or have their social media accounts monitored; and Brown claims that schools need to respect that students have the right to opt out of speaking the Pledge of Allegiance.
Hentoff wrote “Expelling Huck Finn” in response to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s, or NAACP’s, movement to remove The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from mandatory reading lists because it shows “‘a stereotype that has psychologically damaging effects on the self-esteem of African American children’” (98).

He counters the NAACP’s claim, asserting that students can tell that the novel is about anti-racism. Hentoff defends his assertion by reflecting on a conversation he had with a group of African American eighth grade students who had been studying the novel and its historical background; they said that they “‘know the difference between a racist book and an anti-racist book’” (98). This means that with proper education on the history of racism, students are perfectly able to absorb the valuable messages in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. He then points to a 1998 lawsuit that was aimed at removing Huck Finn from compulsory reading lists; the judge made the point that “‘a necessary component of any education is learning to think critically about offensive ideas,’” meaning that students would not have a complete education without reading the novel (Hentoff 99). This example alludes to his overarching claim that without education on the history of racism, students could be doomed to repeat the same racist mistakes in the

future.
In “Social Media and Student Athletes: Legal Issues Are Quriky,” Santovec explores the controversies surrounding monitoring the social media accounts of student athletes. She mentions the current blurred lines between what is and is not appropriate to post on the internet; she points out that “When three female student athletes sexted a male coach, they were surprised to find out people considered their behavior to be a problem” (Santovec). Adolescents no longer have the same moral lines between what is right and wrong. “Many see nothing wrong with sharing… with or without clothes,” so problems are bound to arise (Santovec). She finds that schools are choosing to combat the social scandals two ways: banning social media altogether or monitoring social media accounts. She points out that bans can work as long as “they are seen as reasonable and specific,” meaning a school could not ban a student from all social media but could ban social media during trips and games (Santovec ). If a school tried to do an entire season ban, it would go against their First Amendment rights. Santovec then points out that monitoring social media has just as many problems, asserting that monitoring sets administrators and teachers up for some potentially compromising situations. Her solution to the problem is to train “athletes about what is and isn’t appropriate” so that they have a clear set of expectations (Santovec 26). She claims that concise rules are the key to preventing social media mishaps.
Brown confronts the issue of students being forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school in his article “Pledge problems: the Supreme Court ruled 72 years ago that public schools can't force students to recite the Pledge of allegiance--yet some officials still haven't gotten the message.” He starts by giving readers an example of an eighth grade girl who “was refused treatment by her school’s nurse simply because she declined to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance,” which gives the reader some insight on how big of a controversy the Pledge truly causes (Brown). More examples are given to strengthen his point: he speaks of students who opt out of reciting the Pledge because of religious reasons and alludes to the “[1943] West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette… brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses… making it clear that public schools can’t compel students to recite the Pledge if they have an objection” (Brown). According to the ruling of the case, if a teacher attempts to force a student to say the Pledge or punishes a student for not saying it, the teacher breaks the student’s First Amendment right. Many schools force students to recite the Pledge anyway because they ignore or do not know of the law. Some believe that saying the Pledge is a way to show patriotism, and they believe that, by not saying it, a person is going against her country. A student from Oak Park High School was “harassed… by his teacher to the point that he felt compelled to stand during the Pledge” (Brown). By doing forcing the student to participate, the teacher went against the student’s constitutional right to opt out of the Pledge. Brown offered one solution to this problem: an apology. The superintendent of Oak Park Unified School District “eventually apologized for the teacher’s behavior,” which is a common response from schools who punish students for refusing to say the Pledge (Brown).
Public school students’ First Amendment rights can be a touchy subject. There are many points on both side of the spectrum when considering what is and is not right in terms of what students should be exposed to. Should books be banned because they have racist language? Should student athletes have monitored social media accounts to avoid controversy? Should it be mandatory for students to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Hentoff’s, Santovec’s, and Brown’s articles all shared the same message—give K-12 students their First Amendment rights.