This initial posting is intended to demonstrate the types of responses we
think are appropriate in this forum.


What follows is an example of a student question, four possible responses,
and criticisms of those responses.  If anyone wishes to comment on these
examples, please send it to through this listserv by addressing it to
lgleagle@listserv.syr.edu


Sample middle school student question:

I don't understand how the Supreme Court can rule in R.A.V.'s favor in the
R.A.V. v. St. Paul case?



Response #1

Go look up the R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) case and read the majority decision.

Comments on Response #1

This response is inadequate because it is too short and doesn't provide
enough information for the student.  The respondent should have been more
specific in assisting the student where to find the decision.


Response #2

You're right, the Court should have ruled in favor of the town of St. Paul.
 What R.A.V. did was a blatantly racist act and should not be tolerated in
this country.  The Supreme Court justices abrogated their responsibilities
by not ruling against R.A.V.  The Supreme Court is a racist institution and
has never ruled favorably for minorities.

Comment on Response #2

This response has several problems.  First off, it is incorrect as to the
facts of the case.  Also the respondent has gone too far in injecting his
or her own opinion and biases into the response.  While we are aware that
experts might need to editorialize on some questions, this question should
not have elicited such a response.


Response #3

"Petitioner moved to dismiss this count on the ground that the St. Paul
ordinance was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based, and
therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment.  The trial court
granted this motion, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed.  That court
rejected petitioner's overbreadth claim because, as construed in prior
Minnesota cases, see, e.g., In re Welfare of S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d 412 (Minn.
1978), the modifying phrase "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others"
limited the reach of the ordinance to conduct that amounts to "fighting
words," i.e., "conduct that itself inflicts injury or tends to incite
immediate violence . . . ," In re Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507, 510
(Minn. 1991) (citing Chaplinsky [505 U.S. 377, 381] v. New Hampshire, 315
U.S. 568, 572 (1942)), and therefore the ordinance reached only expression
"that the first amendment does not protect," 464 N.W.2d, at 511.  The court
also concluded that the ordinance was not impermissibly content based
because, in its view, "the ordinance is a narrowly tailored means toward
accomplishing the compelling governmental interest in protecting the
community against bias-motivated threats to public safety and order.""

Comments on Response #3

This response (taken verbatim from the actual opinion in this case) is much
too technical and obtuse for the average middle or even high school
student.  While it might seem difficult to paraphrase some court rulings,
an effort still should have been made in this instance.  Also, this
response is merely a regurgitation of the Justice's opinion.  The
respondent should have made the response more accessible to the average
student.


Response #4

In making its decision in this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
R.A.V.  This does not mean that the Court thinks cross burnings should
happen.  But the justices had to rule according to the facts of this case.
The Supreme Court ruled against the city of St. Paul's law.  They found
this law unconstitutional because it was overbroad.  That means that they
thought the law could be used by the city authorities against speech that
should be allowed.  This would make the law in violation of the First
Amendment of the Constitution that prohibits the government from making
laws "abridging the freedom of speech."  The Court wasn't condoning
R.A.V.'s actions but the justices know that it is necessary to protect the
right of almost all speech, especially the speech that we disagree with
most.  If you want to read more of the specific opinion of this case, then
go to the following website:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=505&pa
ge=377

Comments on Response #4

This response is excellent.  It answers the question and even frames the
question in the proper context.  It also provides a complete webpage
citation to get to the actual decision.


Feel free to comment on these examples.