Drew Kompare

DCC 320.03

April 6, 2016

Professor Dumas

            The Supreme Court simulation was pretty fun, especially from the position of a justice. It was a nice critical thinking exercise, hunting for the weaknesses in the two arguments presented to me. From my perspective, it was abundantly clear where majority of the weaknesses lay, but as it came time for the simulation to end, it became apparent that not all the Justices were on the same page.

I essentially judged the arguments on their validity. Do these arguments make sense? Do they hold water? Are they logical, hard to despute? After taking a political rhetoric class last semester, I felt very qualified to evaluate any argument presented. Human Heritage also instilled a certain mentality in me, the idea that there are no right or wrong answers, simply well-argued or poorly-argued positions. Essentially, the case all boiled down to this: which side did a better job of proving or disproving that the students’ rights to free speech were violated?

I’m quite certain the whole class knows I was unhappy with the verdict… Several of the justices had no idea how court cases work. They based their decisions on irrelevant factors, like the fact that the student’s paper could make the school look bad (despite the fact that there is a disclaimer stating that the school is not responsible for the paper’s content). The justices who ruled in favor of the school did so because they felt the school’s actions were justified. The problem is, that has nothing to do with the case at hand. Nobody is asking whether the school’s actions are justified or not, the issue we were addressing was the student’s rights to free speech. As obvious as that was to me, and no matter how many times I explained it, my fellow justices still focused on the motives behind the schools actions. I said it in class and I’ll say it again, it doesn’t matter why the school did what they did, all that matters is whether or not the student’s rights were violated, and the student’s did an excellent job establishing that they did not violate any rules or policies. They were able to cite school codes that firmly established that the student’s never once stepped outside of the school’s rules, and yet majority of the justices decided the student’s rights were not infringed upon. Perhaps it’s a good thing most of my classmates don’t vote.

On a more positive note I really enjoyed this activity, it was fun to explore this complex issue as a class and examine all perspectives. It’s crazy to see how much censorship happens in a country founded on the principal of free speech, I can’t believe that even in the 80s music was under so much attack. It drives me crazy to think that in America, of all countries, there were/are organizations trying to tailor media to their values. In a free country, music and other mediums of expression were/are regulated in the name of protecting the public. The irony…