Students may exercise their right to free speech as long as elected form of exprssion does not uses derogatory or vulgar language, advocate the use of drugs or alcohol, or support sexual behavior, and does not conflict with the school’s goals or the principles of civilized social order. If followed, no disciplinary action will be taken by school officials; therefore, allegations of due process violations or freedom of expression should not be entertained. Yenny
When the Supreme Court decides a case, it clarifies the law and serves as guide for how future cases should be decided. Before the Supreme Court makes a decision, it always looks to precedents to help make the decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on three significant cases regarding freedom of speech in schools and 1st Amendment rights. These cases are Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel v. Frankel, and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that Iowa school officials violated the 1st Amendment rights of students, who were suspended for wearing black armbands to schools in protest of the Vietnam war. The Court stated that the wearing of the armbands was a form of symbolic speech which is “akin to pure speech”, therefore protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments. School officials argued that the use of armbands would be disruptive in school. The Supreme Court ruled that school officials could not silence speech because of their own personal views or opinions. The court argued that school officials must forecast whether of not the speech will be substantially disruptive or invade the rights of others. The court ruled that public schools are an appropriate place to exercise “symbolic speech” as long as school functions are not disrupted. School officials may limit a student’s speech if it can establish that it would interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in school.
In the case of Bethel v. Fraser, school officials suspended high school student Matthew Fraser due to a speech he gave at an assembly supporting a candidate for school government. School officials disciplined the student, due to lewd references made within the context of his speech. Fraser protested and stated that his suspension violated the precedent established by Tinker. Although the speech was related to a student government campaign, the court distinguished the sexual nature of the content of the speech as opposed to the political nature of the speech in Tinker. The Court made a distinction between what was considered a “political” case as in Tinker, versus a “vulgar” speech made during a school sponsored event. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the student’s 1st Amendment rights were not violated, as they emphasized that students do not have the same 1st Amendment rights as adults. The court explained that school officials may prohibit the use of lewd or offensive language and may limit a student’s speech if it is not consistent with the school’s mission. Controversial issues may be expressed, but not if the content is deemed “vulgar” by the school. The mission includes protecting vulnerable students and limiting material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity.
In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, several students were sued after a Missouri principal censored two articles in the school newspaper related to pregnancy and divorce. The principal believed the content was not appropriate for younger students. Students argued that this censorship violated their 1st Amendment rights. The Hazelwood East High School newspaper was not a public forum, but a school-sponsored activity. The newspaper was part of a journalism class, and articles were routinely submitted to either an advisor or the school principal for approval. Since students were taking the class for credit, the newspaper was considered part of the school curriculum. Schools have control over its curriculum, which enables the school to ensure that students learn what the class is designed to teach. A federal district court judge approved of the principal’s actions and dismissed the lawsuit. However, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in 1986, ruling that school officials could not have reasonably forecast that the articles would cause a substantial disruption, as required by Tinker. According to Hudson (2003), “the two decisions mean that different standards apply depending on whether student expression is student-initiated or school-sponsored. If student expression is considered student-initiated, the Tinker standard of substantial disruption applies. If the student expression is school sponsored, then Hazelwood’s reasonable-educator standard applies.” (pg. 16.). dor
When taking into consideration that rulings of Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel v. Fraser, and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier the Supreme Court is telling us that there is more than one way for students to appropriately express themselves and have it protected by law, and when we try to sanction how a student expresses themselves with symbols they choose to wear, we are in violation of the First Amendment because those symbols are closely akin to pure speech which is protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, a student can be disciplined for their freedom of expression in schools when what they are expressing interrupts school activities (such as the case in Bethel v. Fraser), causes the school to deviate from intended curriculum or mission (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier), and interferes with the lives of others. Maur
Thinking about relevant Supreme Court cases and what they have stated with regards to students’ freedom of expression within schools, one thing is evident, student speech is subject to more restrictions and more discipline if it is disruptive to the general flow and mission of the school and their ability to carry out the curriculum. As long as this speech, whether it be true speech (verbal speaking) or closely akin to pure speech (symbols that are clearly conveying a message or speech) is not disruptive to the school environment, then students enjoy the same rights as adults and their First Amendment rights. Pete
The Supreme Court cases have provided students’ with their rights when it comes to freedom of speech. They ruled that students’ freedom of expression in schools, whether it is verbal speech or “closely akin to pure speech” (symbolic speech), could only be prohibited if the administration is able to show that it impacts the education of students within the school. Disciplinary actions must occur if student learning of the curriculum is negatively impacted. Otherwise, the students’ first amendment rights must be upheld. These cases are extremely important with the increasing amount of student activists. In fact, “children and youth are not on the sidelines. They are protagonists in the fight for their rights and their well being” (McNulty, 2019). ash
The post Students may exercise their right to free speech as long as elected appeared first on PapersSpot.
