Government as Educator
Government as Educator.—While the Court had previously made clear that students in public schools are entitled to some constitutional protection705 and that minors generally are not outside the range of constitutional protection,706 its first attempt to establish standards of First Amendment expression guarantees against curtailment by school authorities came in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.707 There, high school principals had banned the wearing of black armbands by students in school as a symbol of protest against United States actions in Vietnam. Reversing the refusal of lower courts to reinstate students who had been suspended for violating the ban, the Court set out the balance to be drawn. First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.... On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.708 Restriction on expression by school authorities is only permissible to prevent disruption of educational discipline. In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school, the prohibition cannot be sustained.709
705 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (flag salute); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (limitation of language curriculum to English); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (compulsory school attendance in public rather than choice of public or private schools).
706 In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Of course, children are in a number of respects subject to restrictions which would be impermissible were adults involved. E.g., Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968); Rowan v. Post Office Dep't, 397 U.S. 728 (1970) (access to objectionable and perhaps obscene materials).
707 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
708 393 U.S. at 506, 507.
709 393 U.S. at 509. The internal quotation is from Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1966). See also Papish v. Board of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973) (state university could not expel a student for using indecent speech in campus newspaper). However, offensive indecent speech in the context of a high school assembly is punishable by school authorities. See Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (upholding 2-day suspension, and withdrawal of privilege of speaking at graduation, for student who used sophomoric sexual metaphor in speech given to school assembly).
Tinker was reaffirmed by the Court in Healy v. James,710 in which it held that the withholding of recognition by a public college administration from a student organization violated the students right of association, which is a construct of First Amendment liberties. Denial of recognition, the Court held, was impermissible if it had been based on the local organizations affiliation with the national SDS, or on disagreement with the organizations philosophy, or on a fear of disruption with no evidentiary support. First Amendment rights must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of the . . . environment in the particular case.... And, where state-operated educational institutions are involved, this Court has long recognized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools. . . . Yet, the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large. Quite to the contrary, [t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. . . . The college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the market place of ideas and we break no new constitutional ground in reaffirming this Nations dedication to safeguarding academic freedom.711 But a college may impose reasonable regulations to maintain order and preserve an atmosphere in which learning may take place, and it may impose as a condition of recognition that each organization affirm in advance its willingness to adhere to reasonable campus law.712
While a public college may not be required to open its facilities generally for use by student groups, once it has done so it must justify any discriminations and exclusions under applicable constitutional norms, such as those developed under the public forum doctrine. Thus, it was constitutionally impermissible for a college to close off its facilities, otherwise open, to students wishing to engage in religious speech.713 To be sure, a decision to permit access by religious groups had to be evaluated under First Amendment religion standards, but equal access did not violate the religion clauses. Compliance with stricter state constitutional provisions on church-state was a substantial interest, but it could not justify a content-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment speech clause.714 By enactment of the Equal Access Act in 1984,715 Congress applied the same limited open [public] forum principles to public high schools, and the Court upheld the Act against First Amendment challenge.716 On the other hand, a public university that imposed an "accept-all-comers" policy on student groups as a condition of receiving the financial and other benefits of official school recognition did not impair a student religious group's right to expressive association because the school's policy was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.66
710 408 U.S. 169 (1972).
712 Healy v. James, 408 U.S. at 193. Because a First Amendment right was in issue, the burden was on the college to justify its rejection of a request for recognition rather than upon the requesters to justify affirmatively their right to be recognized. Id. at 184. Justice Rehnquist concurred in the result, because in his view a school administration could impose upon students reasonable regulations that would be impermissible if imposed by the government upon all citizens; consequently, cases cited by the Court which had arisen in the latter situation he did not think controlling. Id. at 201. See also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972), in which the Court upheld an anti-noise ordinance that forbade persons on grounds adjacent to a school to willfully make noise or to create any other diversion during school hours that disturbs or tends to disturb normal school activities.
713 Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).
714 454 U.S. at 270-76. Whether the holding extends beyond the college level to students in high school or below who are more impressionable and perhaps less able to appreciate that equal access does not compromise the schools neutrality toward religion, id. at 274 n.14, is unclear. See Brandon v. Board of Education, 635 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1123 (1981).
715 Pub. L. No. 98-377, title VII, 98 Stat. 1302, 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-74.
716 Westside Community Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990). There was no opinion of the Court on the Establishment Clause holding. A plurality opinion, id. at 247-53, rejected Justice Marshalls contention, id. at 263, that compulsory attendance and other structured aspects of the particular high school setting in Mergens differed so significantly from the relatively robust, open college setting in Widmar as to suggest state endorsement of religion.
66 Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010). The Court did not address the more difficult question raised by the school's written policy, which forbade discrimination, among other things, based on religion or sexual orientation, because the parties stipulated that in practice student groups were required to accept all students who complied with neutral membership requirements (e.g., payment of dues). Id. at 11-12. Thus, the Court did not address whether the application of the narrower written anti-discrimination policies constituted viewpoint discrimination against a student group that required its members to adhere to its religious tenets, including the belief that sexual activity should only occur in the context of marriage between a man and a woman. Id. at 21-23 (Alito, J., dissenting).
When faced with another conflict between a school systems obligation to inculcate community values in students and the expression rights of those students, the Court splintered badly, remanding for full trial a case challenging the authority of a school board to remove certain books from high school and junior high school libraries.717 In dispute were the school boards reasons for removing the books—whether, as the board alleged, because of vulgarity and other content-neutral reasons, or whether also because of political disagreement with contents. The plurality conceded that school boards must be permitted to establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit community values, and that there is a legitimate and substantial community interest in promoting respect for authority and traditional values be they social, moral, or political. At the same time, the plurality thought that students retained substantial free expression protections and that among these was the right to receive information and ideas. Carefully limiting its discussion to the removal of books from a school library, thereby excluding acquisition of books as well as questions of school curricula, the plurality would hold a school board constitutionally disabled from removing library books in order to deny access to ideas with which it disagrees for political reasons.718 The four dissenters basically rejected the contention that school children have a protected right to receive information and ideas and thought that the proper role of education was to inculcate the communitys values, a function into which the federal courts could rarely intrude.719 The decision provides little guidance to school officials and to the lower courts and assures a revisiting of the controversy by the Supreme Court.
717 Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
718 457 U.S. at 862, 864-69, 870-72. Only Justices Marshall and Stevens joined fully Justice Brennans opinion. Justice Blackmun joined it for the most part with differing emphases. Id. at 875. Justice White refrained from joining any of the opinions but concurred in the result solely because he thought there were unresolved issues of fact that required a trial. Id. at 883.
719 The principal dissent was by Justice Rehnquist. 457 U.S. at 904. See also id. at 885 (Chief Justice Burger), 893 (Justice Powell), 921 (Justice O'Connor).
Tinker was distinguished in Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier,720 the Court relying on public forum analysis to hold that editorial control and censorship of a student newspaper sponsored by a public high school need only be reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.721 The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech—the question that we addressed in Tinker—is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech.722 The student newspaper had been created by school officials as a part of the school curriculum, and served as a supervised learning experience for journalism students. Because no public forum had been created, school officials could maintain editorial control subject only to a reasonableness standard. Thus, a principals decisions to excise from the publication an article describing student pregnancy in a manner believed inappropriate for younger students, and another article on divorce critical of a named parent, were upheld.
The category of school-sponsored speech subject to Kuhlmeier analysis appears to be far broader than the category of student expression still governed by Tinker. School-sponsored activities, the Court indicated, can include publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.723 Because most primary, intermediate, and secondary school environments are tightly structured, with few opportunities for unsupervised student expression,724 Tinker apparently has limited applicability. It may be, for example, that students are protected for off-premises production of underground newspapers (but not necessarily for attempted distribution on school grounds) as well as for non-disruptive symbolic speech. For most student speech at public schools, however, Tinkers tilt in favor of student expression, requiring school administrators to premise censorship on likely disruptive effects, has been replaced by Kuhlmeiers tilt in favor of school administrators pedagogical discretion.725
In Morse v. Frederick,67 the Court held that a school could punish a pupil for displaying a banner that said, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” because these words could reasonably be interpreted as “promoting illegal drug use.”68 The Court indicated that it might have reached a different result if the banner had addressed the issue of “the criminalization of drug use or possession.”69 Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kennedy, wrote a concurring opinion stating that they had joined the majority opinion “on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction on speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as ‘the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.’”70 As Morse v. Frederick was a 5-to-4 decision, Justices Alito and Kennedy’s votes were necessary for a majority and therefore should be read as limiting the majority opinion with respect to future cases.
720 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
721 484 U.S. at 273.
722 484 U.S. at 270-71.
723 484 U.S. at 271. Selection of materials for school libraries may fall within this broad category, depending upon what is meant by designed to impart particular knowledge or skills. See generally Stewart, The First Amendment, the Public Schools, and the Inculcation of Community Values, 18 J. LAW & EDUC. 23 (1989).
724 The Court in Kuhlmeier declined to decide whether the same degree of deference is appropriate with respect to school-sponsored expressive activities at the college and university level. 484 U.S. at 274, n.7.
725 One exception may exist for student religious groups covered by the Equal Access Act; in this context the Court seemed to step back from Kuhlmeiers broad concept of curriculum-relatedness, seeing no constitutionally significant danger of perceived school sponsorship of religion arising from application of the Acts requirement that high schools provide meeting space for student religious groups on the same basis that they provide such space for student clubs. Westside Community Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).
67 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007).
68 127 S. Ct. at 2624.
69 127 S. Ct. at 2625.
70 127 S. Ct. at 2636.
Governmental regulation of school and college administration can also implicate the First Amendment. But the Court dismissed as too attenuated a claim to a First Amendment-based academic freedom privilege to withhold peer review materials from EEOC subpoena in an investigation of a charge of sex discrimination in a faculty tenure decision.726
726 University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990) .
Last modified: September 17, 2012