The Board of Education is bound by the First Amendment<\/h2>\n
Lest anyone thinks that the standpoint the board based their vague and unequally applied rules has any standing, I’d urge you to read Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)<\/a><\/p>\n In the opinion, the Court says:<\/p>\n “The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures — Boards of Education not excepted.”<\/p>\n “Such Boards are numerous, and their territorial jurisdiction often small. But small and local authority may feel less sense of responsibility to the Constitution, and agencies of publicity may be less vigilant in calling it to account.”<\/p>\n “There are village tyrants, as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution.”<\/p>\n “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n and my favorite line from any opinion:<\/p>\n “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On October 11, Teaneck School’s Superintendent Dr. Andre D. Spencer sent out a letter to parents<\/a> in the wake of the most horrific attack on the Jewish people in a single day since the Holocaust.<\/p>\n In that letter<\/a>, Dr. Spencer referred to the attacks perpetrated by Hamas as “the latest incidents in the cycle of violence in the Middle East” and “[t]he unfortunate situation in the Middle East”.<\/p>\n In the days following, I personally reached out to Dr. Spencer and we spoke via telephone for a while about the reasons the letter was so problematic to many residents, including those who had children in the district.\u00a0 I even went as far as to prepare language that Dr. Spencer might be able to use1<\/sup> to indicate that he understood the Jewish community’s anguish and was being responsive to those in his care.<\/p>\n Subsequently, parents in the township organized a Change.org<\/a> petition, entitled: “Teaneck Public Schools: Revise Your Statement on Terrorism in Israel<\/a>“, which urged the Superintendent to revisit his remarks.\u00a0 The letter was signed by 3,071 individuals.<\/p>\n On October 17th, the Township Council unanimously passed Resolution 272-2023 “Denouncing the Terrorist Group Hamas and Supporting the State of Israel”<\/a>.<\/p>\n The next day, residents came to address the Board of Education and Superintendent Spencer at the regular board meeting of October 18th [video link to meeting<\/a>].<\/p>\n At the 10\/18 BOE meeting, Board Vice President Victoria Fisher<\/a> regularly cut off speakers who mentioned atrocities committed by Hamas against Israel, but did not do so for those making comments in the opposite direction.\u00a0 After seeing at least six of these incidents happen (watch e.g. at time indexes: 16:55<\/a>, 50:16<\/a>, 54:35<\/a> and 1:21:57<\/a>), I went to the microphone and spoke.<\/p>\n You can watch me speaking at time reference 1:49:57<\/a>.<\/p>\n Several residents were cut off from speaking based on vague notions that dangerous actions, described in detail were too much for High School students in attendance, to hear.<\/p>\n The Court in Cohen v. CA dealt with the issue of using alternative words, stating:<\/p>\n “Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, I was cut off from speaking no less than 3 times, due solely to the words I spoke to the board.\u00a0 This was an egregious violation of the First Amendment<\/a>, as well as State Law (N.J. STAT. \u00a7 10:4-12(a) — OPMA)<\/a> and Board Policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n “Several parents and community members used the public comment period to criticize Spencer for not explicitly and forcefully condemning the attack. But when they described Hamas\u2019s actions to support that criticism, the board repeatedly shut them down. The board took particular exception to commenters\u2019 \u201cgraphic\u201d descriptions of the attack and repeatedly told speakers to keep in mind that children were in the audience.<\/p>\n Yet when other commenters used their time to emphasize the plight of Palestinians and used similarly \u201cgraphic\u201d language, the board allowed them to continue.”<\/p>\n – Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nThe Superintendent’s Letter:<\/h2>\n
Residents reach out to BOE and receive unequal treatment<\/h2>\n
FIRE: The Teaneck Board of Education\u2019s Restrictions on Public Comment Violate the First Amendment<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Teaneck-Board-of-Education-meeting-Screenshot-2023-11-30-at-9.29.39-AM_0-300x169.webp\")
<\/a>
\n
\n“[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures — and that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 322 U. S. 673-674 (1944).
\nCohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
Watch the board selectively stop certain points of view:
\n