Court Cases
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
The first challenge to traditional school authority arose in 1942. The West Virginia legislature resolved that the schools of the state of West Virginia should support the principles of "Americanism." The Board of Education responded by requiring all students and teachers participate in the flag salute. A student refusing to participate in the flag salute would face expulsion. Further, the student was considered to be a truant, and his parents or guardians were liable. The penalty could be a fine of up to $50 and a jail term of up to thirty days.
Some citizens of West Virginia questioned the authority of the schools to force the children of the state to profess a particular belief. The Jehovah's Witnesses brought a suit against this rule. They believed their constitutional rights were violated and claimed their religious beliefs prevented them from saluting the flag. Therefore, the rule conflicted with the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court made a courageous decision in the midst of World War II. The court did not rule that the schools of the state of West Virginia had the authority to force students to salute the flag. Nor did they rule that the Jehovah's Witnesses were exempt from the rule on the basis of their religious beliefs. The court ruled that, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Every individual regardless of religion has the right to choose whether or not to salute the flag.
The court's ruling was significant because it set a precedent limiting the authority of the state over its citizens and over children in the public schools. Before this ruling the schools acted in loco parentis and therefore had essentially the same power as a parent. This ruling placed a major limitation on school authority. The schools cannot force a student to adopt any particular idea.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
On December 17, 1969 Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt and John Tinker wore black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam war. They were all sent home and suspended from school and could only return if they came back without their armbands. Through their fathers the students filed a complaint in the lower courts. The lower courts dismissed the case on the basis that the wearing of armbands could substantially disrupt or materially interfere with school activities. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the District courts claiming, in the opinion written by Justice Fortas, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
The District court claimed that the action of the school authorities was valid based on their perceived fear of disruption. This argument was unacceptable to the Supreme Court because any form of speech that was against a stronger majority or any speech that sought to change what was established could be considered disruptive. The courts also believe that this demonstration was a silent and passive form of expression, "pure speech." Justice Fortas concludes, "In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution."
In his dissent from the court's opinion, Justice Black, strongly stated that although free speech is very important in our society the public school is not the place for speech or demonstrations. Justice Black believed that "The Court's holding in this case ushers in what I deem to be an entirely new era in which the power to control pupils by the elected 'officials of state supported public schools . . .' in the United States is in ultimate effect transferred to the Supreme Court"
The Supreme Court's verdict was important because it guaranteed students and teachers the right to free speech within the "schoolhouse gate." The consequences of this decision has a profound effect on the environment of the public schools. Schools lost sovereignty over their domain. The limited monarchy of our public schools deteriorated and became a subject of student's and teacher's liberties.
Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)
In Board of Education v. Pico, the local school board attempted to ban certain types of books from the school library. Richard Ahrens, president of the school board in Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 attended a seminar in 1975 sponsored by Parents of New York United (PONYU). PONYU is a conservative organization of parents concerned about education legislation in the State of New York. While at this seminar Ahrens, was given a list of books that were inappropriate for school libraries and upon his return he had the books removed form the libraries. Subsequently, the school board appointed a committee to review the books and present the board with an assessment of the books in question. The committee recommended that five of the books be retained, two books be removed and the remaining four were still in question. The school board rejected the committee's report and banned all but one book.
Steven Pico, a student at the school, brought suit against the board claiming that the board violated his first amendment rights. The District Court ruled in favor of the school committee. The court ruled that the school committee acted not on their religious values but on their conservative educational philosophy.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court, and remanded the action for a trial. The court decided that the school board does have broad discretion in the management of school affairs. However, it must also use similar discretion in avoiding infringement upon students' first amendment rights. The court wrote, "First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to . . . students."
The court also makes it very clear that the library is a place that ideas must exist without encumbrance and that part of the school's job is to expose students to a wide rage of ideas to prepare them for a diverse society. The court decided in favor of Pico claiming that the reason for banning the books was not an educational philosophy but an attempt to censor ideas.
This decision is consistent with the trend that the Supreme Court followed in support of student's rights. The ruling continued the tradition of Tinker and Barnette. The Court believed that public schools should be a marketplace of ideas and the limitation of intellectual freedom or student expression is an attack on the mission of education and an assault on the Constitution.
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Frasier, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser delivered a speech nominating one of his friends for a school office. The speech included explicit sexual metaphors. He delivered the speech in front of 600 students, many of whom were fourteen years old. Fraser admitted that the metaphors were intentional. The school suspended Fraser for three days and removed his name from potential speakers at graduation.
Fraser sued the school, and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the student. The Court of Appeals stated that Fraser was making a statement, just as Tinker, and the others had in wearing a black armband. Therefore, the student did not deserve disciplining for the content of the speech, although he clearly violated a school rule stating, "Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures."
The Supreme Court chose to reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The Court did not believe that Fraser was making a passive statement because the assembly was clearly a school sanctioned forum. The Court also stated that education should promote, "the fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system." Tolerance of divergent political and religious views are among those fundamental values. However, the Court believed that the school district had the authority to make rules regarding the conduct of the students and had a right to enforce those rules.
This case was the first ruling that created a move away from the principles of Tinker and Barnette. It reflected the changing attitudes towards our education system, and reflected the public's feeling that the rights revolution had gone too far and realized the fears of Justice Black outlined in his dissent of the Tinker decision.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
In 1987 the principal of a school district in St. Louis County chose to delete two pages from the newspaper created by the school's Journalism II class. The pages were omitted because of the content of two stories. One story referred to the pregnancy of some students. The second story specifically mentioned the name of a student and her comments about her father's personal behavior and her parent's divorce. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Hazelwood School District claiming a violation of the students' first amendment rights were committed.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the students' rights had been violated. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that rights of the students' are not the same as an individual's rights outside school. The school may disallow speech that is not consistent with educational mission of the institution. Further, school facilities, such as a school newspaper, need not be a public forum. A school may censor school sponsored speech of students.
This case marks a further departure from the Barnette ruling. In Hazelwood, the Court reinforced the rights of the school to limit the speech of students, even if it does not clearly disrupt the functioning of the school. The Court acknowledged the authority of schools to control curriculum. The ideas professed by a school's curriculum, although bound by some Constitutional regulations, are part of the school's discretion
Government 375: Educational Reform and Ideology