The U.S. Supreme Court increasingly leverages a rigid interpretation of the Free Speech Clause to strike regulations that address campaign financing, health care warnings, tax disclosures, collective bargaining agreements, and consumer protections. History has become little more than a slogan that the majority periodically invokes but seldom accurately evaluates. That lack of nuance augments the justices’ authority to articulate absolutist-sounding rules to the detriment of legislatures’ exercise of traditional governmental functions. Jurists would do better to rely on a more proportionate and less categorical approach to decide whether laws impose direct or peripheral burdens on communications. The level of safeguards enjoyed by expressions should be gauged by their value to political self-determination, personal development, or informational contribution. The degree of protections that speech enjoys should be balanced against countervailing government interests, alternatives available to speakers, fit between law and public ends, and relevant history.

Areas and systems affected by compounded crises, protracted conflicts, and structural violence often struggle to reform education for social reconstruction. At the forefront, we observe tireless and ambitious ventures among donor agencies, government institutions, and international and local organizations. However, in many of these cases, we also witness deepening political gridlock, stagnation, and marginalization that undermine the progress of an empowering education for citizenship that upholds principles of human rights. Causal factors to these institutional failures are often either overlooked, redacted, or undocumented in research. Evidence from Morocco, Iraqi Kurdistan, and, most of all, Lebanon illustrates the extent to which governance systems in education can either hinder or even prevent equity in education.