The First Amendment Right to Nonpolitical Homework For my daughter's high-school biology class, the students are required to take a public action addressing climate change. They have a wide range of options of what they can do: write a letter to a public official, design a website, develop a public-service announcement or organize a flash mob. They are required to submit proof that they presented their work publicly - that is, that they mailed the letter, launched the website, etc. Is it ethical for the school to require students to speak publicly on a specific issue? Or even to give extra credit for doing so? Does the students" right to free speech also give them the right not to speak publicly on this topic? What's so interesting about this situation is that it seems as if the school (or at least the biology teacher) is consciously courting controversy in a wholly unsubtle manner. To teach climate change as hard science is not a problem, any more than teaching evolution is a problem - an overwhelming majority of those in the science community agree that the data supporting these ideas is sound. A science curriculum doesn't need universal community support in order to be valid. But is it reasonable to assume any concept accepted as factual should just as legitimately serve as a call for activism? Adding the "action" requirement has nothing to do with science. It's an overt political act, promoting a concept that's obviously not universally accepted. So the question here is not the reality or unreality of climate change (and I hope people who comment on this column do not use the opportunity as a springboard for that debate). The question is whether a school should create a mandatory assignment that requires publicly supporting a divisive idea. I would say the problem is the inclusion of the word "public." Asking students to create the groundwork for a presentation (letter, website, flash mob) is not unethical, because it's mostly a way to make students investigate a subject in a less conventional, more practical context. They will understand the ideas with greater depth. It's a creative means for self-directed education. But forcing them to publicly advocate for that idea is something else entirely. That's an extension of civics. And if a civics instructor demanded all her students campaign in public for a controversial environmental view that she personally supported, it's pretty easy to see how this would be a problem. Here again, the issue is not about the subjective accuracy of the concept; it's about forcing someone without agency to serve as a conduit. A teacher can compel a student to read a book, but he can't compel the pupil to philosophically internalize the themes of that book in order to pass the class. He can't demand that the student write a letter to the local newspaper lauding the book's author in order to get an A. There are limits to what an academic assignment can require, and one of those limits is the degree to which it spills into the pupil's nonacademic life. Extending an assignment into the public sphere is an infringement on that student's right to define his or her public persona. The value of the assignment is not relevant. In this case, the biology teacher has gone one step too far. The educational track is fine, and the motive for the assignment is fine. But the implementation of the assignment outside the classroom should not be part of the grade. You can make a kid write a letter, but you can't force the kid to mail it. If a student who writes a well-argued letter to a public official still wants to send it, the teacher can say: "That's great. That's exactly what I was hoping you would do. But it should not be part of the grade.