1. Chapter 8 Student Rights

2. Agenda  Review the T-Shirts Who is offended and why? Use your empathy!  Present Cases to Class (Can’t be formal)  Free Speech Power Point  Review the T-Shirts Prosecute to the full extent allowed under the US Constitution  Begin TLO  Next week – Finish Chapter 8 & 9

3. Freedom of Student Speech and Expression  Disruption  Forum Analysis  Student Appearance ○ Hair length ○ Style of Dress ○ School Uniforms

4. Tinker v. DesMoines  U.S. Supreme Court, 1969  Parents and students decided to protest Vietnam war by wearing black arm bands and fasting on two days  Administrators heard about this  Subsequently adopted a plan to ban armbands

5. Tinker v. Des Moines  Is this free speech or a substantial disruption to the educational process?  The court ruled that a reasonable person could not have forecast “substantial disruption” to school activities  Reversed and remanded to lower court

6. Bethel v. Fraser  U.S. Supreme Court, 1986  Bethel High School student running for office delivered a non-approved speech which contained lewd language  Advised a priori that what he intended was inappropriate  Called in next day to explain and informed that he would not be a candidate for graduation speaker and suspended 3 days

7. Bethel v. Fraser  Appealed to school board and denied – lewd speech  Sued in court as a violation of 1 st amendment free speech rights  District and appellate courts agreed  What did the SC find?  Lewd student speech is not protected

8. Student Publications  1 st amendment rights and student publications  Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, Supreme Court, 1988  Student newspaper issue – Journalism class for credit  One article featured student pregnancy

9. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier  Principal reviewed per custom  Found article inappropriate  Censored the article  Students (parents) sued under 1 st amendment  What did the court rule?  School may regulate content of articles

10. Morse v. Frederick  Yes  The US Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 decision ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use.  The majority held that the message although cryptic was reasonably interpreted as promoting marijuana use. TM

11. Morse v. Frederick  Three dissenting justices concluded that “the schools interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech ‘reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use’ cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs.” TM

12. Did the school violate 1 st Amendment Free Speech rights of students who wore political buttons to school in support of striking teachers? Teachers in McMinnville, Oregon started a lawful strike. The school district then hired replacement teachers. Chandler and Depweg were students at McMinnville High School and their fathers were among the striking teachers. Chandler and Depweg attended school wearing various buttons and stickers on their clothing. Two of the buttons displayed the slogans "I'm not listening scab" and "Do scabs bleed?" Chandler and Depweg distributed similar buttons to some of their classmates. A temporary administrator asked both students to remove them because they were disruptive. Depweg told him that his morning classes had not been disrupted. A replacement teacher in one of Depweg's classes confirmed that there had been no disruption. Issue: Facts:

13. “We conclude that the district court erred in holding, without more, that the "scab" buttons were inherently disruptive.” The buttons expressed the personal opinion of the students wearing them, and they were displayed in a manner commonly used to convey silently an idea, message, or political opinion to the community. In addition, they expressed a position on a local political issue that was diametrically opposed to the school district's decision to hire replacement teachers. Therefore, the complaint does not show that a reasonable person could have viewed the buttons as bearing the imprimatur of the school. Reasoning: Opinion:

14. Internet?  Beussink v. Woodland, U.S. District Court, Missouri, 1998  Student created a homepage on his own computer, own time, and software found on the Internet which was highly critical of the administration of the high school  He wanted to voice his own opinion

15. Beussink v. Woodland  A previous friend accessed the site in class  Teacher saw homepage and was upset  Students in other classes saw page  Principal suspended student for 5 days  More students viewed and suspended for 5-10 days

16. Beussink v. Woodland  “Clean it up or clear it out” ultimatum  Removed website and returned after 10 days  School policy on unexcused absences was 1 day = 1 letter grade drop  10 days = failure  What to do?  Court ruled 1 st amendment not shed at door of school  Homepage may be Constitutionally protected

17. Wisniewski v. Weedsport  The school, Weedsport Middle School in New York, suspended the student, Aaron Wisniewski, after it came to the attention of school administrators that Wisniewski's AIM account displayed a crude drawing of a pistol firing a bullet at a person's head, with the caption "Kill Mr. Wisniewski for five days and ordered a review of the situation by the superintendent.  During this time, a police investigator interviewed Wisniewski and concluded that the icon was meant as a joke, and that Wisniewski posed no real threat to the teacher or the school. A psychologist who evaluated Wisniewski reached the same conclusion. The superintendent's review found otherwise, however, ruling that the icon was threatening, and not meant as a joke. The review also found that, although the icon was only displayed outside of school, it violated school rules and disrupted school operations. The reviewer dismissed the opinions of the investigator and psychologist, stating that Wisniewski's intent was irrelevant to the inquiry.  The review recommended a semester-long suspension for Wisniewski, which the school district's Board of Education approved. Because of hostility from the school and community, the Wisniewskis eventually moved away from Weedsport.

18. Wisn (cont)  The 2nd Circuit bypassed the question of whether Wisniewski's icon constituted a "true threat" (and the messy factual questions brought up by the conclusions of the investigator and psychologist) by applying the law of an earlier, landmark school speech decision - the same case used by the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" decision as justification for upholding the suspension of a student who held up a drug-related banner across the street from his school.  The case allows for the suppression of speech that would materially disrupt the work and discipline of a school. In addition to that ruling, the 2nd Circuit has also previously ruled that off-campus behaviour that creates a foreseeable risk of disruption can also be punished. The court in Wisniewski's case decided that, because it was reasonably foreseeable when Wisniewski distributed the icon that the icon would eventually come to the attention of school officials and create a substantial disruption, the school could punish Wisniewski for the icon's content.

19. Threats of Violence  Doe v. Pulaski (1992 appellate)  1)speakers intent  2)intended victims reaction  3) communicated directly  4) was threat conditional  5)propensity  6) remoteness BOTTOM LINE?

20. T-Shirt Cases

21. Search and Seizure  Most famous case is TLO  U.S. Supreme Court, 1985  2 girls smoking in BR, searched, and found cigarettes, rolling papers, and MJ in TLO’s purse  Also found in TLO’s purse letters and ledgers detailing $ owed for MJ

22. TLO  Called mom and turned evidence over to the local police  At police HQ, TLO admitted to selling MJ at high school  Lower court and NJ SC agreed that 4 th amendment rights had been violated  SC disagreed and reversed decision because search was reasonable and not excessively intrusive

23. Drug Testing  Veronia v, Acton, Supreme Court, 1995  School random tested athletes for drug use based on danger and prominence of athletes in the community  Random testing is Constitutional

24. Cornfield v. Consolidated HS  Student was suspected of “crotching” drugs  Strip search revealed no evidence of drug crotching  Student sued under 4 th, 5 th, and 14 th amendments  Courts found in favor of school system – if reasonable