By : Hanin, Alaa, Steven, Samantha, and Monte PER 1 Student Right’s By : Hanin, Alaa, Steven, Samantha, and Monte PER 1

Bethel School District No. 403 vs. Fraser - 1986 A student at Bethel High School in Washington — 17-year-old Matthew Fraser — read a speech containing double-entendres at a school assembly. Does the first amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for presenting a lewd election campaign speech at school? The court ruled in favor of the Bethel School District, upholding Fraser's suspension. They stated while the first amendment protects adults using an offensive form of expression while making a political point, it does not apply to public school children. As his risque speech took place at a school-sponsored activity, school officials had the right to punish Fraser for the content of his speech.

Cont… The majority opinion stated that it is an appropriate course of action for a public school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive languages in public discourse. It up to the school district to determine what manner of speech is considered inappropriate. Schools are expected to not only teach from books and the curriculum, but also civilized social order by example. As a result of this case, school officials must meet a standard of reasonableness when restricting expression in school-sponsored events. The dissenting opinion, argued by justices Marshall and John Paul Stevens, said that there was no need for disciplinary action because there was no educational disruption following the speech. They referred to the school's code of conduct which stated "conduct which interferes with the educational process is prohibited" — Fraser's speech did not disobey this rule.Delete ReplyReply ForwardSpamMovePrint Actions NextPrevious

Tinker v. Des Moines School District Date: December 1965 Background info: John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day. Constitution: first amendment

Cont…. Constitutional question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections? Majority opinion: The court's 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Dissent opinion: Justices Hugo Black and John M. Harlan II dissented. Black, long believed that disruptive "symbolic speech" was not constitutionally protected.

New Jersey v T.L.O The case was brought up in 1980. This case questioned the fourth amendemnt of unreasonable search and the fifth amendment for not being able to use her confession due to the unreasonable search. Back-round Info - there were to young girls in the lavatory that were assumed smoking out of the designated area’s. The teacher escorted the two girls to the vice principles office were he talked to T.L.O and conducted a search of her purse. Only after he had asked her if she was indeed smoking after this question he demanded her purse. In her purse he not only fond a pack of cigarettes but he found as well was dollar bills in a large amount, packing cigarette papers, he found a small packet of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, as well as a list that had peoples names who owed T.L.O money. The vice principle then called the police and her mother.

Cont… After this case was seen by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations court of Middlesex County, she tried to have the search of her purse suppressed do to the unlawful search. The court system rejected her Fourth Amendment plea were they soon found her justifiable that she is indeed is a delinquent and serve one year of probation in January of 1982. Shortly after this decision she appealed her conviction to the appellate division were they saw no breaking of the fourth amendment but they returned for the fifth amendment towards T.L.O’s confession. This case was brought to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The Supreme Court of the United States, had a 6 to 3 decision issued by Justice White, the expectation of privacy and the school's interest in maintaining order and discipline, it is clarified that New Jersey won the case. Today's decision sanctions school officials to conduct full scale searches on 'reasonableness' standard whose only definite content is that it is not the same test as the probable cause' standard found in the text of the Fourth Amendment. In adopting this unprecedented and unnecessary departure from the Fourth Amendment, the Court carves out a broad exception to standards that this Court has developed over years of considering the fourth amendment problems.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier The high school newspaper club was writing the regualr paper for the school, but the respondents said that their First Amendments rights were violated by the deletion from a certain issue of the paper of two pages. The pages included a student’s experience with pregnancy and another’s of the impact of divorce on that student. It was written by a journalism class and was to be taken to the principal for approval. The principal rejected such pages because he believed the article referenced to sexual activity and birth control in an unreasonable way. The principle rejected the divorce page because he believed the student could be identified, even though no names were given in the article. A student also complained of her father’s conduct and the principal believed that the student should have asked permission from the parent to say something in the school newspaper. Since the publication process was underway, no changes could be made so the principal deleted the pages, along with anything else that might have been on it. The respondants’ sued the school because they believed their First Amendments were violated

Continued Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir October 13, 1987 Constituional question: Whether the deletion of the the pages on divorce and pregnancy in a school newspaper violated the rights of the respondants. First Amendment On Jan. 13, 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis Summary of the majority: Schools do not need to grant students rights within school grounds “Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns Dissent: Spectrum, as a student-press publication, accepts all rights implied by the First Amendment. . . . Only speech that "materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline" can be found unacceptable and therefore prohibited.