Supreme Court First Amendment Student Expressive Rights

1. Trilogy of Supreme Court Cases Tinker v. Des Moines 1969 Bethel v. Fraser 1986 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 1988 Supreme Court First Amendment Student Expressive Rights

2. Student rights to freedom of expression on school grounds 1st Amendment “The mother of school law” (Zirkel, 1999) Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

3. Case Facts – Tinker v. Des Moines • Some students planned to wear black armbands to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war, including John and Mary Beth Tinker. • District principals heard of the plan and adopted a policy forbidding the wearing of armbands. • John Tinker wore his armband, refused to remove it and was suspended from school.

4. Ruling - Tinker v. Des Moines • The Supreme Court found that the message conveyed by the armbands constituted “pure speech”(political) which is “entitled to comprehensive protection”. (Stader, 2007)

5. Implications - Tinker v. Des Moines “Student speech can be suppressed if the expression substantially disrupts the educational process or collides with the rights of others.” Two considerations in Tinker - • The material and substantial disruption test –in this case there was no evidence of disruption. • Collision with the rights of others – “Schools should be a forum for ideas… and these ideas should not be suppressed simply because they make school officials uncomfortable.” (Stader, 2007)

6. Questions to Consider - What is meant by “substantially disruptive”? Is the disruption being caused by the student or those who oppose her? Bottom line – Students have the right to express themselves but not to disrupt the school.

7. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 3, 1986 Decided July 7, 1986 Bethel School District v. Fraser

8. Case Facts – Bethel v. Fraser • On April 26, 1983, respondent Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. • Approximately 600 high school students many of whom were 14 – year olds, attended the assembly. • During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.

9. Case Facts Continued • Two of Fraser’s teachers, with whom he discussed the contents of his speech in advance, informed him that the speech was “inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it,” and that his delivery of the speech might have “severe consequences.” • During the delivery of the speech, a school counselor observed reactions of students. Some hooted and yelled; some gestured graphically simulating the sexual activities alluded to in the speech; others appeared bewildered and embarrassed. • One teacher’s class was interrupted in order to discuss the speech.

10. First Steps and subsequent findings … • MF is notified that his speech is in violation of the school’s disruptive conduct rule. • His speech interfered with the educational process, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures. • After admitting he deliberately used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was informed that he would be suspended for 3 days. • His name was removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school’s commencement exercises.

11. Federal District Court • Matthew Fraser’s father (as guardian) then filed suit alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought injunctive relief and damages . • District Court Decision: The court held that the school’s sanctions violated the First Amendment, that the school’s “disruptive-conduct rule” was unconstitutionally vague and over broad, and that the removal of respondent’s name from the graduation speaker’s list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. • The court awarded respondent monetary relief and agreed with the School District’s decision in preventing him from speaking at the commencement ceremonies. • The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

12. Supreme Court Decision July 7, 1986 • Petitioner School District acted entirely within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions upon respondent in response to his offensively lewd and indecent speech, which had no claim to First Amendment protection. • There is no merit to respondent’s contention that the circumstances of his suspension violated due process because he had no way of knowing that the delivery of the speech would subject him to disciplinary sanctions. • The school disciplinary rule regarding “obscene” language and the prespeech admonitions of teachers gave adequate warning to respondent that his lewd speech could subject him to sanctions. • The Supreme Court reversed the decision.

13. Bethel v. Fraser • The Supreme Court of the United States found, “Under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. First amendment jurisprudence recognizes an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language.” FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. www.reachandteach.com

14. The Speech On April 26, 1983 Matthew Fraser gave the following speech at a high school assembly in support of a candidate for student government office: “I know a man who is firm – he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm – but Most of all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he’ll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn’t attack things in spurts – he drives hard, pushing and pushing Finally –he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end – even the climax, for each and every one of you. So vote for Jeff for A.S.B., vice-president – he’ll never come (long pause) between you and the best our high school can be. In Bethel, the Supreme Court concluded that disciplining Fraser for his speech was not a violation of his First Amendment rights. What do you think?

15. Missouri District Court May, 1985 Court of Appeals July ,1986 Supreme Court of the United States Decided January 13, 1988 Hazelwood School Districtv. Kuhlmeier

16. Case Facts - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier • The principal of Hazelwood school district reviewed the school newspaper, “The Spectrum,” before its release and ordered many articles to be withheld from publication based on their inappropriate nature. The high school principal prevented the school publication of “The Spectrum” that profiled three pregnant students and quoted other students on reasons for their parents’ divorce. The principal was afraid that the identity of the three students would be revealed, sexual activity content was too graphic for younger students, and parents of students were not able to respond to comments made by students.

17. Ruling - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier • The court ruled that public officials were permitted to restrict expression in the form of school sponsored student publications. The student newspapers were entitled to a lower level of first amendment protection because they were school financed and were therefore not considered a public forum. • Students’ First Amendment rights are not the same as those of adults due to the special characteristics of the school environment.

18. Implications - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier • The Hazelwood ruling has important implications for student newspapers that are part of the school’s curriculum in that restrictions may be placed on them based on reasonable grounds. Administrators may exercise greater authority in monitoring student press but care should be taken not to violate the student rights in the process. This may exercise content-based control over student expression and use of restricting student speech.

19. Implications - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier • When a school-sponsored publication is reserved for its intended purpose, school districts can regulate the content if they have a valid educational purpose and do so in a reasonable manner. • School districts can consider the emotional maturity of the publication’s audience when regulating such content.

20. Summary of Student Speech Rights

21. Implications for Administrators • Although these three cases were decided before Internet access became widespread, they are still used by courts to guide decisions regarding student Internet expression. • These three Supreme Court decisions establish that school districts have considerable control over student speech on school grounds. School districts own the on-campus computers and the software that student use to create projects, and have control over student expression created in this medium.

22. Implications for Administrators • However, this authority may not extend to off-campus speech. • Student speech created off-campus enjoys a higher level of protection than on-campus speech. • Off-campus speech must be established as a true threat or a substantial disruption to the school before disciplinary action can be taken.