‘[BLEEP] School…’

Editor’s Note: The first publication of this article appeared in the July issue of the LRE Committee’s newsletter. Due to the addition of a more expansive summary of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on which the article was based, the article is being republished in the September issue. 

If there is a child in your life of a certain age, then you probably are familiar with Snapchat.¹ But, did you know that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari on a case involving a “snap” that includes the sentiment “[BLEEP] school”, as well as some other choice remarks, sent by a “frustrated” high school student known as B.L.?² The decision is a good read and sets up the pertinent background information nicely:

B.L. is a student at Mahanoy Area High School (MAHS). As a rising freshman, she tried out for cheerleading and made junior varsity. The next year, she was again placed on JV. To add insult to injury, an incoming freshman made the varsity team.

B.L. was frustrated: She had not advanced in cheerleading, was unhappy with her position on a private softball team and was anxious about upcoming exams. So one Saturday, while hanging out with a friend at a local store, she decided to vent those frustrations.

We have found it to be more than just a good read. Take B.L.’s snap, the resulting school-imposed punishment, and the ensuing First Amendment litigation and you have a great topic to capture the attention of a middle or high school student! Along with our colleagues in the 22nd Judicial Circuit, we embraced this fact scenario as a wonderful example to help students in civics classes understand how the ideas set out in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are still at work today. So far, we think we have been proven right: the dispute between B.L. and the school district has been a great vehicle to explain how a fundamental principle of our government and our judiciary—the First Amendment—affects students and community members.

Our presentation is pretty simple. We use a slide show to shepherd the students through a general explanation of the structure of our government and a description of the court system. Then, we focus on First Amendment precedent and the recent Snapchat case. Teachers in local school districts have welcomed us into their classrooms virtually this year to supplement the civics curriculum. Certainly, none of us judges are experts at teaching or the remote platforms we use to present the content, but we have managed to connect with a number of students who are engaged, ask excellent questions, and are able to understand the various viewpoints at issue in the case.
There is no magic to the content or the method of presentation. In the past, we have presented similar general civics information but focused on the Fourth Amendment, raising questions with the students about whether the school could search their cell phones and, if so, under what circumstances.³ Before the pandemic we presented in-person to classes ranging from 15 students enrolled in AP Government to a couple hundred 7th graders taking civics. There are many ways to be engaging and interactive with a room full of students and these issues.

Over the past two years, we have presented to hundreds if not thousands of students in several school districts. We have every intention of continuing those efforts. But the point of this article is not to tell you about our good deeds or to convince you that students benefit from more in-depth civics education. Rather, the point of this article is to tell you that our idea is bigger than that and to invite you to join in our efforts.

Putting judges in classrooms to talk about the judiciary is a high-quality, straight-forward idea that is not our own. We follow in the footsteps of others who have done it effectively with great success.⁴ We believe this idea is most effective when it emphasizes giving students a local look at a few foundational ideas that are already part of their civics curriculum, and we think the best way to do that involves using local officials as the presenters. For the judicial branch, this means a judge teaches about precedent on an issue, helps students understand how it affects their everyday lives, and lets them “think out loud” through the competing interests to really bring the concepts home. The teachers we work with are already doing this, and we believe that this message is reinforced when it is delivered by a judge who lives and works in the students’ community.

Taking it one step further, this idea is not and should not be limited to the judicial branch. Even though we have an admitted affinity to our own branch of government, we hope to expand this program next school year to include local members of the legislative and executive branches. We are seeking volunteers to join in our efforts. Let’s have a city council member talk about how they reach decisions on a contentious issue. Let’s have a school administrator talk about being the executive of a school district in the midst of a pandemic. The next generation of judges, councilwomen, administrators, and community members are ready and waiting to learn about democracy in action.

We have told you what we have been doing and we have told you what we would like to do next. Here comes “the ask”: What if you made an offer to speak at a local school? Are you a local board member willing to offer some time? Can you arrange for a village president in the area to attend a presentation? Before you answer, take into account some practical considerations based upon our experience:

• You do not need a lot of content. A normal class period goes by very quickly, especially if you invite participation. Take a 10-minute overview of the judicial system, add 10 minutes about a few cases, add introductions along with some Q&A, and you have filled a 40-minute class period.
• Start with people you know. Our presentations began with reaching out to contacts we already had—school board members, administrators, and teachers. From there, the list of interested classrooms expanded. But if you start with a familiar face, you are more likely to get a positive response to your offer and you are more likely to be comfortable.
• These can be done in person or remotely. In person has advantages, especially when it comes to seeing your audience and gauging their level of interest. But remote presentations have advantages too. It is much easier to schedule a 40-minute presentation between court appearances if there is no travel time.
• Consider a partner. These presentations can be done successfully with one presenter. In some respects, that may be easier. But do not be wary of presenting with a partner. In our experience, the presentations can be better with some back-and-forth. Plus, there are two personalities for the students to relate with, you can fill the time more easily, you have help with remote platform logistics, and of course, there is more than one person to answer questions. Which leads to our next point ….
• Yes, you will get questions; no, you cannot anticipate all of them and that’s okay! No one expects perfection so laughing or saying I don’t know is perfectly fine. We have had questions ranging from the proper venue for multi-state litigation (it depends!) to whether we make a lot of money (this is a great job, and we do not take it on for the money), but rest assured many of the questions are very on-point and insightful.

Because of the cooperation and hard work of our school systems, we have an opportunity to help make foundational civics principles come alive for students. With some time and effort, we can help classrooms explore what it means to apply these principles as citizen in our communities. Utilizing meaningful present-day content, we can encourage that thought process to foster responsible citizenship now and in the future. We are proud to be part of a legal community that has been working at this for several years and we look forward to collaborating with members from other branches of government.

Justin Hansen is a circuit court judge in McHenry County and the presiding judge of the Family Division. Jennifer Johnson is an associate judge in McHenry County. Both are recent recipients of the Illinois State Bar Association’s Civics Education Award. Both wish to thank their colleagues in the 22nd Judicial Circuit who have supported and contributed to education outreach, especially Chief Judge James S. Cowlin, as well as the Illinois State Bar Association and the Illinois Judges Association.