Student Speech

Student speech rights are ones that often are over-looked. In many educational systems students are expected to give up certain constitutional rights when attending school. At our own school one could argue student speech is an issue. There are many circumstances of censorship, unreasonable punishment, vocal restrictions, and other limits of freedom, which one could argue our school enacts against the constitution.

Supreme court judges often use previous cases on similar topics to help them make their decisions. So, it is important to discuss those on student speech in order of occurrence as judges continuously reference previous cases to prove their points. So the first case is Tinker v Des Moins Independent Community School District. The petitioners in this case were John Tinker who was 15 and Christopher Eckhard who was 16, both boys attending high schools in Des Moines. Also was petitioner Mary Beth Tinker who was 13 and at junior high school. The respondent was the Des Moins Independent School District.

In December 1965, at the Eckhard home some students and adults met in Des Moins to talk about the Vietnam War and possible forms of protest. They decided to wear black armbands in support of a truce throughout the holiday season. When the Des Moins schools heard of this they made a policy that stated any student wearing a black armband would be suspended until they choose to take it off. So, when the three petitioners arrived at school with their armbands they were suspended and didn’t go back to school until after New Years as that was when they stopped wearing the armbands. They filed a complaint but the district court decided the school acted constitutionally. On appeal the court was split and the case went to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court they found it was a violation of the students 1st and 14th amendments. The court decided that the decision to suspend and not allow students to peacefully, silently, voice their opinions is against the 1st amendment, and as it was a specifically targeted group of protesters rather than including all groups which wore something to symbolize a cause, it violated the 14th amendment.

One statement made by Justice Fortas, which is used in many cases to come is, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The issue at hand was not a simple school violation by a student, but the school violated the student’s right to pure speech. The only time in a school situation that the 1st amendment can be slightly put aside is if the act disrupts class, or the learning process, or has a direct negative affect on the school’s ability to teach. There was no proof, however, that the wearing of the armbands disrupted any class or instigated any unruly behavior. The school banned the wearing of something that served as a silent expression of ones opinions, and in no way created disturbance or infringed on other student’s rights. Also, the school district made the decision based on their fear that there would be disturbance of the school if the armbands were allowed; however, because they had to legitimate proof or reason to think so it does not justify it. Our Constitution protects taking the risk of allowing those students to wear t he armbands to voice their opinions, especially when those opinions are political as that is what our country is based on. Our Constitutional rights are meant to follow us despite our location, or age. Although it is true that adults have greater constitutional rights than students, as long as the use of the 1st amendment does not greatly cause conflict within a school or deprive other students of their rights and access to learning then it is not excusable to punish these students. And thus the Supreme Court found in favor of the petitioner.

The next case occurred in 1986, BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 v. Fraser. In 1983 Matthew N. Fraser gave a speech to nominate a friend for the elective office. This speech was given in front of around 600 students including freshman who would have been 14 years old. The issue, however, is that the speech itself was a large sexual metaphor with explicit description. Many teachers and students were upset by the speech and the principal suspended Fraser as he violated the rule of the school, which stated, “Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser’s father, the technical respondent (as Matthew Fraser the actual respondent is a minor) brought it to the district court as a violation of his son’s 1st amendment right and the court agreed, then at the Court of Appeals they also agreed that it was a violation of Fraser’s first amendment right and the court used the Tinker example to make their judgment. Then the school, the petitioner took it to the Supreme Court where the ruling was reversed.

The Supreme Court recognized this case as very different from Tinker. The main difference is that in Tinker it was students who were peacefully expressing their political opinions, in Fraser it is a student using sexual and obscene language and causing a disruption in the education process at the school. In response to the Tinker case the court’s main argument is that the speech of Fraser hindered the schools ability to teach. The language used was deemed offensive to many people, and in violation of clear school rules. Many teachers had to take time from their classes to talk about the speech and what it meant. Fraser argued that there was no way of knowing he would be suspended as the school rules are not defined. In response to this the court stated that it is the school’s responsibility to protect against many possible violations and thus the rules are intentionally vague, but it is the school’s responsibility to declare what they believe to be disruptive and vulgur. The speech did nothing to further the education of his peers or to contribute to the school and thus the court found in favor of the respondent.

A few years later was HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Kuhlmeier in 1988. This case was about the issue of censorship in a school newspaper. The respondents, three Hazelwood East students from the staff of the school newspaper Spectrum, believe their 1st amendment rights were violated when two articles were not published in the newspaper. Two articles had been written, one on pregnancy within the school, and one on divorce. These two articles seemed to the petitioner Emerson, as well as petitioner Reynolds, to be inappropriate. Emerson was afraid that the articles were not anonymous enough and that students would be identified, also Emerson thought it unfair that the boyfriends and parents mentioned in these articles did not have the chance to defend themselves or the statements made against them. Also, the content of the articles about sex, contraceptives etc could be inappropriate for some students. Reynolds, the president of the school, was under the impression that there was no time for the articles to be edited to fix these issues and thus decided they should be deleted from the newspaper. The respondents then brought it to the district court who ruled it was not a violation of the 1st amendment, but the court of appeals ruled it was. Then the Supreme Court took the case and reversed the court of appeals decision.

The main argument the court made was that because it was a journalism class, that received grades and needed to follow certain guidelines the freedom of expression is slightly limited. Also, because it is the name and expenses of the school that go in to the paper they have more right to edit what goes in to it. If it were a student run magazine, or paper the situation would be different. The court explained the difference between this case and Tinker is that with Tinker the school is determining when to tolerate a student’s particular speech, but with this case the school is just determining whether to promote the particular speech by giving its name and resources. It can be argued that the articles would have interfered with school policy and education and were not following instruction for the journalism class and therefore it is not a violation of the student’s 1st amendment rights. So, the court found in favor of the petitioner.

The last case we have about student speech is Morse v. Frederick in 2007. In January 2002 when the Olympic Torch relay passed through Juneau, Alaska Juneau –Douglas High School allowed the students to take a small “field-trip” and watch as the relay passed by school. The respondent, Joseph Frederick a senior at JDHS came to school late that day. When the cameras and relay passed by he stood at the across the school with some friends, as he had not checked in to school yet, and held up a large banner that said “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” The entire school that went to watch the relay, as well as some news cameras, saw this banner. Principal Morse demanded Frederick to go to her office, and she then suspended him as he was suggesting and promoting the use of illegal drugs among his peers. This was a school violation and the sign was displayed during school hours at a school sanctioned event. The case was brought to the district court in which they used the Fraser decision to say the principal acted correctly as the banner intrudes upon the work of the school. The Supreme Court then had to see whether Frederick had a constitutional right to show the banner, and whether is he did if the principle was liable for charges. The Supreme Court found that Frederick had no such right.

The basis for this decision is that the sign held up directly had a negative effect on the school and its educational abilities, and caused disruption. Also, the banner promotes the use of illegal drugs which is a school violation and the school therefore has the right to punish that behavior. Frederick tried to argue that the banner was just nonsense and had no drug reference, but because of the vague and multiple interpretations it is still recognized as drug reference. In Tinker it was determined that student expression can only be suppressed if the expression disrupts the school. In Fraser, the difference is that Tinker was used for a political message and Fraser was of sexual innuendo, but Frederick adds a new element in as it has drug reference. It would be a different story if Frederick declared the sign had political or religious meaning, but because he does not there is no political debate or message he is trying to get across by revealing this banner. So because the banner did nothing other than disrupt the school, and violate a school rule about illegal drug implications the Supreme Court found in favor of Morse.

-Isabella