Download
1 / 23
300 likes | 1.06k Views
Bethel School District No.403 v. Fraser. Supreme Court of the United States, 1986 478 U.S. 675. The Premise. Certiorari was granted to decide whether “the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly.”.
E N D
Bethel School District No.403 v. Fraser Supreme Court of the United States, 1986 478 U.S. 675
The Premise • Certiorari was granted to decide whether “the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly.”
April 26, 1983 – School assembly held in which Matthew N. Fraser, the respondent delivered a nomination speech for a fellow classmate. • Approximately 600 students were present, most of whom were 14-year olds. • A school educational program in self-government sponsored the assembly.
FIRST AMENDMENT • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government, for a redress of grievances.”
During the speech, Fraser referred to candidate in terms of an “elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. • The contents of the speech were discussed in advance by two of Fraser’s teachers. • Fraser was informed that the speech was “inappropriate” and may have “severe consequences.” • Fraser chose to deliver the speech.
The Consequences • A school counselor observed the attending student’s reaction’s to the speech which consisted of - “hooting and yelling - gestures that “graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to in the respondent’s speech. - bewilderment and embarrassment. • One teacher felt the need to forgo a portion of her lesson the following day in order to discuss the speech with the class.
“Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.” • The following morning Fraser was disciplined by assistant principal for violating the school’s disciplinary rule.
Disciplinary Action • Five teachers submitted letters describing Fraser’s conduct at the assembly. • Fraser admitted giving the speech and deliberately using sexual innuendo. • Fraser was suspended for three days. • Fraser’s name was removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school’s commencement exercises.
Disciplinary Action Review • Fraser filed grievance. • The hearing officer concluded that the speech given by Fraser was “indecent, lewd, and offensive to the modesty and decency of many of the students and faculty in attendance at the assembly.” • The examiner confirmed the discipline in its entirety.
District Court • Case was brought to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. • He alleged a violation of his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought “injunctive relief and monetary damages”. • The District Court ruled in favor of respondent. • Respondent was awarded damages.
Appeals • The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. • Ruled that Fraser’s speech was “indistinguishable” from the “protest armband in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. • The Appeals Court also rejected the School District’s arguments. “We granted certiorari…We reverse.”
Decision • Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” –acknowledged by the Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
First Amendment Protection • The public school system must prepare students to be active, successful and productive citizens in the community. • It must also instill the habits and manners of civilization as values of themselves. • These values must include tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when unpopular. • These “fundamental values” must also take into consideration the sensibilities of others.
Insisting that certain types of expression are “inappropriate and subject to sanctions” is the “work of the schools.” • Determination of appropriate speech in the classroom or school assemblies is decided by the school board. • Fraser’s speech was plainly offensive and could have been socially damaging.
Final Decision • School district acted within its rights of permissible authority in imposing sanctions upon Fraser. • The First Amendment doesn’t prevent school officials from deciding that a lewd speech, such as Fraser’s would undermine the school’s basic educational mission. • It was appropriate for the school to point out that the student’s vulgar speech was inconsistent with the public school education’s “fundamental values.”
Fraser challenged that the circumstances of his suspension violated due process. • Two days suspension is not severe enough to bring about a full procedure of due process. • The school discipline rule and the warnings of teachers gave Fraser adequate warning of the consequences he may face.
Therefore…the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was reversed. • School officials properly punished respondent.
The Speech “I know a man who is firm – he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm – but most of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he’ll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn’t attack things in spurts – he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally – he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end – even the climax, for each and every one of you. So vote for Jeff for A.S.B. vice-president – he’ll never come between you and the best our high school can be.
Significance • While there is freedom to express unpopular and controversial views…the sensibilities of others must be taken into consideration. • Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from contending certain types of expression as inappropriate and subject to sanctions. • Determining which manners of speech in the classroom or other educational assemblies are inappropriate rests with the school board.
