Plaintiff
Megara Bell et al.
Defendant
The U-32 Board of Education
Plaintiff's Claim
That the board of education had violated the First Amendment rights of the students.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Alan Rosenfield
Chief Defense Lawyer
Robert H. Opel
U.S. District Judge
Chief Judge Coffrin
Place
U.S. District Court, District of Vermont
Date of Decision
17 March 1986
Decision
The school board did not violate the First Amendment rights of the students.
Significance
School officials have the ability, when trying to keep a clean and productivelearning environment, to stop certain sentiments, deemed inappropriate, frombeing spread throughout the student body.
The First Amendment guarantees U.S. residents freedom of speech, but it is one of the most difficult concepts to untangle. Freedom of speech covers so many different issues and has been the subject of so many different court casesthat no one definition serves. No one phrase captures all of the meanings imbued to the guarantee of freedom of speech. Of course, there is one other issue: with so many people and so many freedoms, it is difficult to know where one person's freedom ends and another person's rights begins. An example of this is found in the case of Bell v. U-32 Board of Education.
Every spring, U-32 High School produced a musical. The audience, as it does in many school plays, consisted of other students, parents and other people from the community. The school acted as sponsor for these plays, providing funds, covering costs above ticket sales, providing rehearsal and performance locations, publicizing the plays, etc. Generally, the performers and stage crewwere made up of students from seventh to twelfth grades. These students received grades as well as academic credits for participating in these productionsbecause the play was considered part of the curriculum. Faculty staff members received extra compensation for directing the play and for general supervision of the production. Each January faculty members picked a play and the school board approved the production by appropriating funds.
Around 16 January 1984, the curriculum director spoke to the principal aboutthe appropriateness of that year's choice. The chosen play for 1984 was called Runaways. The principal and superintendent of schools read the play,discussed it with various school administrators, faculty members who chose the play, the director and other involved faculty members. The final decisionwas that the school could not support this particular production. Their concerns revolved around the subject of the play and some of its content.
The play was about several runaway children who were reflecting about the home problems that drove them away from home and some of their problems out in the street. Much of the play contrasted nursery rhymes with relatively realistic portrayals of some issues faced by runaway children in rougher situations--things like drug abuse, alcohol, child prostitution, and rape. One especially graphic scene featured a murder and a rape. There was some profane languageand some humor.
When the school's performing arts director appealed to the school board, theyarranged for a special school board meeting three days later, on Monday, 23January. This would allow time for a decision before auditions which were scheduled to begin on Tuesday, 24 January.
Notices for the meeting were posted in a store and the superintendent's office. Also, a local radio station broadcast public service announcements about the meeting. All of the school board members attended, except one. Several faculty members and students also attended so their views could be heard. However, without stating any reasons, the school board voted that the play not be produced. Soon after the meeting, the plaintiffs spoke with an attorney. The attorney asked the board to reconsider clarifying its reasons for its decision.
On 8 February 1984 the board sent a letter to the attorney that it would adda motion for reconsideration to the next regular meeting's agenda on 23 February. At the meeting, the board explained its decision. They said, essentially, that the play was inappropriate for students and the general community forvarious reasons. The board said they disapproved of the play because it involved sexual activity, child abuse, sexual violence, drug abuse and other suchmatters. The board did note that the play did not advocate or glamorize any of these things. Furthermore, the board pointed out, the play was available inthe school library and was used as a textbook in a humanities class. The board thought that with all the available plays, this particular production didnot represent a proper allocation of school funds. The same day as the meeting, the students filed their court action.
The district court ruled that the school board's decision about the play would hold because this did not violate the First Amendment rights of the students. It did not violate the First Amendment rights of the students because a school board can establish curricula so as to uphold and communicate communityvalues as long as this did not deny access to ideas and opinions of others just because they disagreed with those ideas.
Performing Arts Censorship
The performing arts is a medium of communication of ideas protected by the First Amendment. Yet, no absolute freedom exists to exhibit every kind of filmand theater. What is deemed obscene, indecent, or excessively violent is subject to censorship. Should this censorship exist?
Proponents of censorship emphasize the role of the performing arts as entertainment clearly affecting public attitudes, behaviors, and morals. Blatantly offensive performances encourage violence, sexual promiscuity, and drug abuse.Censorship is, therefore, vital to safeguard children and adults from pornography and excessive violence. Opponents of regulation counter that censorshipthreatens the free speech rights of playwrights, screenwriters, filmmakers,performers, and distributors. They contend that deciding what is obscene or excessive is highly subjective.
Proponents also support voluntary rating systems. Owners of theaters and video rental franchises maintain such systems keeps customer satisfaction high and their business healthy. Civil libertarians and professional entertainer organizations object, saying in reality the rating systems are not voluntary butimposed through intimidation. The systems are also arbitrary, showing signsof racism, gender bias, and favoring large studios with sufficient budgets torepeatedly edit. Lastly, opponents contend legislation passed in the 1990s to improve children's programming only served to impose the government's values on society.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1998.
Megara Bell et al.
Defendant
The U-32 Board of Education
Plaintiff's Claim
That the board of education had violated the First Amendment rights of the students.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Alan Rosenfield
Chief Defense Lawyer
Robert H. Opel
U.S. District Judge
Chief Judge Coffrin
Place
U.S. District Court, District of Vermont
Date of Decision
17 March 1986
Decision
The school board did not violate the First Amendment rights of the students.
Significance
School officials have the ability, when trying to keep a clean and productivelearning environment, to stop certain sentiments, deemed inappropriate, frombeing spread throughout the student body.
The First Amendment guarantees U.S. residents freedom of speech, but it is one of the most difficult concepts to untangle. Freedom of speech covers so many different issues and has been the subject of so many different court casesthat no one definition serves. No one phrase captures all of the meanings imbued to the guarantee of freedom of speech. Of course, there is one other issue: with so many people and so many freedoms, it is difficult to know where one person's freedom ends and another person's rights begins. An example of this is found in the case of Bell v. U-32 Board of Education.
Every spring, U-32 High School produced a musical. The audience, as it does in many school plays, consisted of other students, parents and other people from the community. The school acted as sponsor for these plays, providing funds, covering costs above ticket sales, providing rehearsal and performance locations, publicizing the plays, etc. Generally, the performers and stage crewwere made up of students from seventh to twelfth grades. These students received grades as well as academic credits for participating in these productionsbecause the play was considered part of the curriculum. Faculty staff members received extra compensation for directing the play and for general supervision of the production. Each January faculty members picked a play and the school board approved the production by appropriating funds.
Around 16 January 1984, the curriculum director spoke to the principal aboutthe appropriateness of that year's choice. The chosen play for 1984 was called Runaways. The principal and superintendent of schools read the play,discussed it with various school administrators, faculty members who chose the play, the director and other involved faculty members. The final decisionwas that the school could not support this particular production. Their concerns revolved around the subject of the play and some of its content.
The play was about several runaway children who were reflecting about the home problems that drove them away from home and some of their problems out in the street. Much of the play contrasted nursery rhymes with relatively realistic portrayals of some issues faced by runaway children in rougher situations--things like drug abuse, alcohol, child prostitution, and rape. One especially graphic scene featured a murder and a rape. There was some profane languageand some humor.
When the school's performing arts director appealed to the school board, theyarranged for a special school board meeting three days later, on Monday, 23January. This would allow time for a decision before auditions which were scheduled to begin on Tuesday, 24 January.
Notices for the meeting were posted in a store and the superintendent's office. Also, a local radio station broadcast public service announcements about the meeting. All of the school board members attended, except one. Several faculty members and students also attended so their views could be heard. However, without stating any reasons, the school board voted that the play not be produced. Soon after the meeting, the plaintiffs spoke with an attorney. The attorney asked the board to reconsider clarifying its reasons for its decision.
On 8 February 1984 the board sent a letter to the attorney that it would adda motion for reconsideration to the next regular meeting's agenda on 23 February. At the meeting, the board explained its decision. They said, essentially, that the play was inappropriate for students and the general community forvarious reasons. The board said they disapproved of the play because it involved sexual activity, child abuse, sexual violence, drug abuse and other suchmatters. The board did note that the play did not advocate or glamorize any of these things. Furthermore, the board pointed out, the play was available inthe school library and was used as a textbook in a humanities class. The board thought that with all the available plays, this particular production didnot represent a proper allocation of school funds. The same day as the meeting, the students filed their court action.
The district court ruled that the school board's decision about the play would hold because this did not violate the First Amendment rights of the students. It did not violate the First Amendment rights of the students because a school board can establish curricula so as to uphold and communicate communityvalues as long as this did not deny access to ideas and opinions of others just because they disagreed with those ideas.
Performing Arts Censorship
The performing arts is a medium of communication of ideas protected by the First Amendment. Yet, no absolute freedom exists to exhibit every kind of filmand theater. What is deemed obscene, indecent, or excessively violent is subject to censorship. Should this censorship exist?
Proponents of censorship emphasize the role of the performing arts as entertainment clearly affecting public attitudes, behaviors, and morals. Blatantly offensive performances encourage violence, sexual promiscuity, and drug abuse.Censorship is, therefore, vital to safeguard children and adults from pornography and excessive violence. Opponents of regulation counter that censorshipthreatens the free speech rights of playwrights, screenwriters, filmmakers,performers, and distributors. They contend that deciding what is obscene or excessive is highly subjective.
Proponents also support voluntary rating systems. Owners of theaters and video rental franchises maintain such systems keeps customer satisfaction high and their business healthy. Civil libertarians and professional entertainer organizations object, saying in reality the rating systems are not voluntary butimposed through intimidation. The systems are also arbitrary, showing signsof racism, gender bias, and favoring large studios with sufficient budgets torepeatedly edit. Lastly, opponents contend legislation passed in the 1990s to improve children's programming only served to impose the government's values on society.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1998.
Further Readings
- Lieberman, Jethro K. The Evolving Constitution. Random House,1992.
- Seidman, Louis M., Gerald R. Stone, Cass R. Sunstein, Mark V. Tushnet. Constitutional Law. Little, Brown and Company, 1986.
User Comments Add a comment…