Question

Refer to the passage below.

On April 26, 1983, Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly. Students were required to attend the assembly or to report to the study hall. The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. Students who elected not to attend the assembly were required to report to study hall. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.

Two of Fraser's teachers, with whom he discussed the contents of his speech in advance, informed him that the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it," and that his delivery of the speech might have "severe consequences."

During Fraser's delivery of the speech, a school counselor observed the reaction of students to the speech. Some students hooted and yelled; some by gestures graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to in respondent's speech. Other students appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. One teacher reported that, on the day following the speech, she found it necessary to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson in order to discuss the speech with the class.

A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of obscene language in the school provides:

Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.

The morning after the assembly, the Assistant Principal called Fraser into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of this rule. . . . He was suspended for three days, and . . . removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement.

–Opinion of the Court,
Chief Justice Warren Burger

In the resulting case, Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), the Supreme Court upheld Fraser’s punishment, indicating that there had been no constitutional violation. In doing so, the court stated that there was a "marked distinction” between a political message and the sexual content of Fraser’s speech. The court noted that there appeared to be at least some disruption of the educational process, and that there was an interest in protecting children from that which is obscene and vulgar.

a) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and Bethel.

b) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District led to a different holding than the holding in Bethel School District v. Fraser.

c) Describe an action that members of the public who disagree with the holding in Bethel School District v. Fraser could take to limit its impact.

Answer 1

a) The constitutional clause that is common to both Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically the Free Speech Clause.

b) In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The court ruled that in order for school officials to justify suppressing the speech of students, they must reasonably forecast that the speech would cause a substantial disruption to the school environment. In contrast, in Bethel School District v. Fraser, the court emphasized the school's interest in protecting children from obscene and vulgar speech. The court found that Fraser's speech, with its sexually explicit content, was inconsistent with the educational mission of the school and could be reasonably seen as interfering with the educational process.

c) Members of the public who disagree with the holding in Bethel School District v. Fraser could take the following actions to limit its impact:

1. Advocate for stricter guidelines or policies regarding the punishment or restriction of student speech in schools.

2. Support organizations or initiatives that promote free speech rights for students and challenge restrictive policies.

3. Engage in public discourse and raise awareness about the importance of protecting free speech rights, particularly in educational settings.

4. Encourage the development of alternative educational approaches that foster open dialogue and critical thinking while still maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment.

5. Work with lawmakers and policymakers to propose legislation or amendments that clarify the boundaries of student speech rights and provide clearer guidelines for schools to navigate these issues.