Know Your Rights:
A Brief History of Free Speech in School

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." - Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas
Like so many legal issues, there is no exact definition of the extent to which free expression can be stifled in a schoolroom setting within the confines of the law. Legal precedent is being altered on a case-to-case basis.
In 1915, the United States Supreme Court established the fact that schools retain the right to place any reasonable limit on student speech in the case of Waugh v. Board of Trustees. This finding remained unchallenged until 1966.
Perhaps the landmark precedent-setting case concerning student first amendment rights is that of Tinker v. Des Moines. In order to voice their grievances concerning the Vietnam War, and in order to promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict, a Quaker group in Des Moines, Iowa determined to wear black arm bands to school. Upon hearing of this plan, the school implemented a policy under which students choosing to take place in the protest would be suspended indefinitely, until agreeing to not wear the arm bands on their return to school. Seven students chose to wear the arm bands in spite of the known consequences, and they were subsequently suspended. Three students, John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Chris Eckhardt brought suits against the school, believing that the school's policy infringed upon their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Though the district court found that the school was justified in their decision, the Supreme Court found that, while a school is justified in restricting student speech in order to prevent a disturbance and to maintain order, the act in question would not create substantial disruption, given that other symbols, including the Iron Cross (a symbol commonly associated with Nazism), were allowed to be worn under school policy. Justice Fortas wrote that "any word spoken in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk." Furthermore, the court stated that "School officials cannot suppress expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend."
On April 26, 1983, a high school senior, Matthew Fraser delivered a campaign speech endorsing one of his fellow classmates for student office. The speech was wrought with sexual innuendo, though no obscenities were used. He had previously reviewed his speech with three teachers, who classified the speech as "inappropriate," and stated that he "probably should not deliver it," but all three neglected to mention that it may be in violation of a school rule. As a result of the speech, Fraser was suspended for three days, and his right to speak at the graduation assembly was revoked. Matthew's father, filing suit against the school, won his case in district court, and the school was prevented from prohibiting Matthew to speak at graduation. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the speech was "lewd and obscene," and, as such, not protected under the Constitution.
In the 1988 case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court placed more restrictions on student speech. A Missouri principal, objecting to two articles in the school newspaper, removed the pages containing these articles from print. One article dealt with the effect of divorce on teens, and the other with teen pregnancy. The principal felt that the identities of students were not properly masked, and he felt that to run the articles would constitute an invasion of their privacy. Supreme Court Justice Byron White, speaking on behalf of the Court, stated that, in a school-sponsored publication such as the one in question, "a school need not tolerate speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." This ruling allowed that a school, acting as the publisher of the school newspaper, could legally block publication of speech that is "ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences."
However, legal precedent still maintains that a school must establish that censorship is a necessary precaution to avoid substantial interference with its educational goals. Furthermore, schools forfeit this right if school authorities have made explicit statements establishing the newspaper as an open forum for student expression, or if, through its prior actions, the paper has been indicated as such.
One method by which schools can, and have in the past circumvented a the constitutional rights of a school newspaper to publish openly as a student forum is simply to remove the adviser to the paper. The constitutionality of this practice was upheld in lower court when officials at a Blue Springs, Missouri school fired a teacher who published a story about businesses selling cigarettes to minors.
Though restrictions placed on students' rights to free speech have grown over the years, six states, including California, have passed laws specifically designed to protect student access to school publications as a means of expression. According to the California State Educational Code, Section 48907, which was passed on February 22, 1977, students are allowed free use of publications supported financially by the school "except that expression shall be prohibited which is obscene, libelous, or slanderous." It also prohibits material which creates a "clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school."
In any instance, even in states without such provisions, students retain certain specific rights on school premises. A student may legally exercise his or her rights through leaflets, buttons, or organized demonstrations, though if a school feels that allowing such an action will interfere with the education which they are providing, or will offend the general population, they are entitled to place reasonable limits on these modes of expression.
For more information on your rights as a student, there are an abundance of sources at your disposal. Most of the research on this article was conducted in the library of Santana High School, which has several books on the topic filed inexplicably under "Controversial Topics." I would strongly recommend the books "Student Rights" by Patrick H. Hinchey and "Schoolhouse Decisions of the United States Supreme Court" by Maureen Harrison and Steve Gilbert. If you have access to a computer with an internet connection, you may want to check out the American Civil Liberties Union web site (http://www.aclu.org), which has a whole section devoted to students, or the Student Press Law Center (http://www.splc.org). Both are excellent resources.

Back to Issue #1