Bethel School District vs. Fraser This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises. Fraser's father brought action against the school board in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. He alleged the suspension and punishment were a violation of his son's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The father sought injunctive and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. of 1983. The district court awarded the student $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation costs and attorney's fees, and ordered the school district not to prevent the student from speaking at the commencement ceremonies. The school district appealed the decision, arguing that the speech had a disruptive effect on the educational process. The school district said it had an interest in protecting an audience of minors from indecent speech in the school. The school board believed it had the right to control language that was used during a school-sponsored activity. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. On May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. The article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce. The following article featured students at Hazelwood East and their experiences as teen parents in high school. Reynolds immediately asked for the two articles to be withheld from that weeks edition. Reynolds had concluded fairness required the father in the divorce article to be informed of the article and given the chance to make any comments. He also stated that changing the names of the girls in the teen pregnancy article may not be sufficient enough to keep them unidentified. Also, the topic is not suitable for younger students. As a result he forbid the two articles from being published. On October 13, 1987 Cathy Kuhlmeier (a student at Hazelwood East High) claimed that Hazelwood East High School was violating her First Amendment rights, and her case was
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=41>. . N. p.. Web. The Web. The Web. 14 Jan 2014.
Therefore, the respondents took the case to court (Island Trees…). The holding, the court’s decision, by a 5-4 vote, was “The First Amendment limits the power of local or school boards to remove library books from junior high schools and high schools” (Island Trees…). The court also said that the Board of Education “should not intervene in ‘the daily operations of school systems’ unless ‘basic constitutional values’ were ‘sharply implicate[d]”(qtd. in Board of Education, Island). The dissent consisted of Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor; the concurrence consisted of Blackmun and White (Island Trees…).
Board of Education (1954) which was a case of racial segregation of children that were discriminated against in public schools that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Next, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) the Court decided that monetary damages of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which demonstrated sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) held a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that was against sexual harassment, denying a student of equal opportunity the school provided and subjecting them to facing discrimination in an elementary environment (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
Fraser (1986). During a student assembly, Senior, Matthew Fraser gave a campaign speech to elect his friend to student government. Fraser’s speech was rife with sexual innuendo. Consequently he was suspended and his name removed from the list of possible graduation speakers—he was second in his class at the time. In this case, the Court established that there is a monumental difference between the First Amendment protection of expression for “dealing with a major issue of public policy and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech” (“Key Supreme Court Cases,” 2015). Comparatively, Foster’s high school points out that there is a monumental difference between Foster’s desire to express his individuality and impress girls, and the school’s desire to regulate the serious public concern of gang activity within the school. Indeed, in the petitioner’s application of Tinkering and Chalifoux court cases, the defense notes, in both First Amendment cases the students were addressing a major public issue—political and religion statements. Foster’s message of individuality, however, decidedly lacked a message that would safeguard his First Amendment
The State should have not made it a mandatory procedure in public schools. They did not have the right to do so because of what the Constitution states. The Supreme Court made is very clear what the violations were and why the State was wrong and why the State lost the case. For a state government to not allow freedom of speech is illegal and violates the Bill of Rights. I agree with the verdict of the Supreme Court because what the government of Virginia did was disgraceful and contradicts the United States
I fully agree with the District Court and the First Circuit Court on the ruling for the school district against Jason, a high school student that wrote a facebook post during school hours and on school campus that included vulgar and offensive words towards his fellow classmates in which he named in the post. When first looking at this case you can either apply the Supreme Court precedent set in the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser or Tinker vs. Des Moines. If we apply the Fraser test to Jason’s speech his speech would have not been protected. According to Fraser schools may prohibit speech that “materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser majority at page 2. Jason did in fact use offensive speech when talking about the other students in his post, the names he called them and the profanity in the speech would reasonably be seen as offensive and vulgar. Though if applying this case to the Fraser test Jason’s speech would not be protected, in this case I decided to apply his speech to the test set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines.
There have been many cases where exceptions have been made over the first amendment, such as in the Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School District Case. Teenagers by the name of Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker had planned to wear black armbands to their school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War. When word reached the principle, of Christopher and Mary Beth’s plan to arrive with the black armbands, the principal created a policy stating that, “any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.” (The Oyez Project). After being kicked out of school, Tinker’s parents sued them but their case was dismissed due to the fact that the first amendment does not grant one the right to express their opinion at any place nor at any time. Another official claimed that the first amendment is not fully guaranteed to children. While the first amendment may be a boon to the United States, it is not always just. There are limitations, and conditions surrounding the first amendment and our freedom of speech. In Tinker’s case, her armband was seen as disruptive, and distracting to other students, justifying the school’s actions against the student of suspending and eventually expelling
Ultimately, these duties are crystallized in taboos and are observed automatically. Thus, are ethical codes of behavior born? And so, it is with us today. Ethics constitute the basic codes of civilized behavior, without which our environment, as we know it, would be impossible. Such rules embody the basic constraints each of us agrees to practice in relationships with others. We consent to these constraints in the knowledge that, in so doing, we make the existence of all, including ourselves, more
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
Justice Hugo Black dissented and feared that the Court’s ruling would cause more revolutionary actions from students. However, Justice Fortas addressed this potential outcome. He says, “Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.Burnside v. Byars, supra at 749.” The school’s ban of the armbands could not be upheld because the expression had not caused any harm. If the students underwent another expression, the school would still have the power to make a decision. If their actions were disruptive, the school would still have the power to limit these actions. The students’ rights are still protected, and the school still has the authority to operate the
Board of Education court case and the enactment of the fourteenth amendment? The problem doesn’t solely lie on a system failure but also on the misconstrued ideas and beliefs that are inculcated in the minds of individuals since childhood. The system methodically segregates minorities into specific cities and regions, majority of which are impoverished neighborhoods. (Kornblum & Julian) This method interferes with the possibility of children coexisting amongst different races and ethnicities harmoniously, but instead reinforces the idea that whites are superior to others. Children are taught to fear blacks, because of the common stereotype of blacks being a dangerous underclass. And while whites enjoy superior education, minorities are left with underfunded, underachieving, poor schools, ensuring that they remain in poverty. In fact, research has proven that people of color were two (2) to three (3) more likely to inhabit in neighborhoods with commercial landfills that release toxic waste, severely affecting their health