The “I heart…” bracelets support a good cause–breast cancer awareness, and the banning of those bracelets in schools is also in support of a good cause–good taste. Although it is common today to use language freely, not everyone is comfortable with slang terms. The censorship of student speech is necessary in a school environment to ensure that students respect each other.

The decision to restrict student language wasn’t made by our school administration, but by the Supreme Court justices in 1988. The case Hazlewood School District v. Cathy Kuhlmeier dictates that schools do not have to tolerate speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission even though they couldn’t censor similar speech outside the school. This includes student speech, publications and theater productions or other student expression with no valid educational value.

Although the bracelets support breast cancer awareness, with that awareness should come education. Simply being aware that cancer exists is not enough. We need to know how to donate, what causes this cancer, and how to prevent it. The use of one controversial word should not determine whether students promote this awareness or not. If students are truly concerned about breast cancer, they can find other means than just a banned bracelet to support awareness.

Students may believe that censorship infringes upon their freedom of speech, this is a common fallacy. While freedom of speech does apply to all people, in certain circumstances, censorship is necessary to maintain peace. Students do have the freedom to wear bracelets in support of breast cancer awareness, but they also have the choice of the terminology those bracelets use.

This bracelet has already been banned in schools nationwide (including California) due to the offensive wording. Schools have always had the right to limit the amount of disruptive behavior among students and that is exactly what the ban of the “I heart…” bracelets is doing. Even though many students do wear the bracelets as a sign of support, others wear them only because they use language they normally wouldn’t be allowed to use. Should we risk offending the very people the bracelet makers claim to support?

No one would say the same things around their grandparents that they would around their friends, and this principle is applied everywhere. The speech you use outside of school is different than what you use in a professional setting because of the level of respect  involved. A CEO of a big-time corporation wouldn’t walk into a business meeting with a potential client while wearing his “Family Guy” t-shirt and “I heart ‘SouthPark’” hat because it is a professional setting. Schools are also professional environments filled with underage populations and not a place for expressions of questionable taste or educational value.

So next time you get mad because you don’t get to do what you want to, step back and look at the big picture. Your freedom only extends as far as the next person’s and the next person may be offended by what you think is cute and/or funny. Because school-aged students apparently can’t make the right choices when it comes to good taste, the Supreme Court has made that choice for them.  Besides, just because someone comes up with a cute yet questionable phrase in support of breast cancer awareness doesn’t mean people with breast cancer will appreciate the humor.