2. Case Basics The 1985 Supreme Court case of Bethel School District v. Fraser:  gave schools the right to regulate indecent speech that may be perceived as offensive but not necessarily obscene  In a 7-2 vote, the court sided with the Bethel School District and decided the defendant’s words were inconsistent with the “values of public school education” and were punishable

3. In this corner: Matthew N. Fraser!  On April 26, 1983, Matthew N. Fraser, a 17-year-old senior at Bethel High School in Spanaway, Washington, made a nomination speech at a student assembly that was filled with obvious sexual references (see handout)  The day after the speech, Fraser was issued three days of suspension (he served only three) and was prohibited from speaking at graduation (the District Court of Wash. overturned this punishment).

4. The Respondent: Matthew N. Fraser Fraser’s father filed a lawsuit soon after for the following reasons: 1. Fraser felt his due process rights were violated because he was not made aware by teachers that had read his speech would merit suspension. 2. He felt his 1 st Amendment rights, particularly the right to make a statement about his position on student politics, were imposed upon. 3. The school’s disruptive conduct rule was unconstitutionally vague.

5. In this corner: Bethel School District!  Largely due to the students’ reaction to the speech, the school administration saw fit to discipline Fraser.  The court reported that some students at the assembly were “bewildered by the speech and the reaction of mimicry it provoked.”  In short, the BSD found the uproar incited by the speech disruptive.

6. The Petitioner: Bethel School District  The BSD disciplinary code forbids conduct which “substantially interferes with the educational process… including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.”  This rule formed the basis of the Bethel School District’s case.  The BSD contested that Fraser’s words were, in fact, obscene. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980- 1989/1985/1985_84_1667

7. Whether or not Fraser’s words were “disruptive” and public schools had the right to punish speech made under such circumstances

8. Original Case and Subsequent Appeals  U.S. Supreme Court (July 7, 1986)  Sided with the petitioning Bethel School District  U.S. District Court for the Western Dist. of Wash.  Awarded Fraser $278 in damages and $12,750 in legal fees and allowed him to speak at graduation  U.S. District Court for the Western Dist. of Wash.  Awarded Fraser $278 in damages and $12,750 in legal fees and allowed him to speak at graduation  Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit Court  Bethel School District appealed; the court sided again with Fraser (see handout)  Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit Court  Bethel School District appealed; the court sided again with Fraser (see handout)

9. Important Precedents:  Miller v. California  Tinker v. Des Moines

10. The Outcome  The majority opinion (7 votes):  Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger said, “The purpose of public education in America is to teach fundamental values. These fundamental values... must... include consideration of the political sensibilities of other students.”  The court overturned the previous rulings of the lower courts; Fraser’s words were indeed punishable.  The dissenting opinion (2 votes):  Justice Brennan believed that schools constitutionally could regulate the speech of students, but felt that Fraser’s particular remarks did not warrant punishment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=uDKW0i4fbko )http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=uDKW0i4fbko  Justice Thurgood Marshall disagreed for similar reasons.

11. Expert opinion: Education Editor “The Chief Justice [Burger] may have been motivated by old-fashioned chivalry; but in the contemporary context, he has a sexist ring. Should high-school girls be sent out of the room when Shakespeare's ‘lewd' ways of dealing with male sexuality and his frequent sexual metaphors and innuendo appear in literature classes?” - Fred M. Hechinger in a New York Times opinion piece (July 15, 1986 )

12. Expert opinion: Secretary Bennett  Then Education Secretary William J. Bennett referred to the decision as “an important victory for American schools,” and added that “there is no constitutional right to disrupt the learning process.”

13. Expert opinion: Legal Writer  Kevin O’ Shea, publisher of the monthly legal newsletter First Amendment Rights in Education, believes:  “[The Fraser case] represents the first major step away from Tinker,”  The case started a “troubling trend of restricting student First Amendment rights.”

14. Bibliography