We The Students: Liberty! Conference 2010

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988

In 1983 in St. Louis County, Missouri, a school principal reviewed the proofs (draft version) of the school newspaper, called The Spectrum, and was troubled by two articles written by students. He considered the first article, on teenage pregnancy, to be too controversial for some younger students because the article discussed sexual activities and birth control. The second article, about the impact of divorce on a student, included a student’s complaint about her father’s conduct, and the principal felt that there was not an opportunity for the parent to respond or give his consent to the article. The principal decided to remove the articles from the newspaper. The student journalists disagreed with the principal and challenged his decision to censor their work in court.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled for the school, saying, “Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Because it was a school-sponsored newspaper, the principal had the right to keep certain articles out of the paper, as long as he showed a good reason. The Court felt that shielding students from “inappropriate” material was a good reason.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986

In 1983, Mathew Fraser, a senior at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington, spoke at a 600- student school assembly to nominate a classmate for student government. His speech was filled with sexual references and innuendos, but it contained no obscenities. While Fraser’s candidate was overwhelmingly elected, Fraser was suspended from school for three days and removed from the list of students who were eligible to make graduation remarks. (Fraser was second in his class at that time.) His parents disagreed with the school’s disciplinary action, and challenged the school in court.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the school. It decided that school officials could punish Fraser for giving a speech before the student body that contained lewd language and numerous sexual references. Even though Fraser argued in court that his speech warranted as much protection as wearing armbands in the Tinker case, the Court disagreed, saying that “the freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.” The Court went on to say that it is an appropriate function of schooling to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.

The bottom line: The Tinker message was political. The Fraser message was just vulgar.

Chief Justice Warren Burger