Petitioner
Bethel School District in Pierce County, Washington State
Respondent
Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School
Petitioner's Claim
School authorities should be permitted to discipline students that use language those authorities consider offensive.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
William A. Coats, Clifford D. Foster, Jr.
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Jeffrey T. Haley and Charles S. Sims
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for theCourt), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
7 July 1986
Decision
The First Amendment did not prevent school authorities from disciplining Matthew Fraser for giving an "offensively lewd and indecent speech." School disciplinary codes only have to describe offenses in general terms; they need notbe as detailed as a criminal code, which imposes harsh punishments.
Significance
Bethel was only the second case dealing with the legal rights of students. The Court ruled that students do not enjoy the full protection accordedto adults. Schools may limit student speech both to prevent disruption and also to instill fundamental values.
Jeff Held Firm Convictions
Matthew Fraser was a student with an outstanding academic record at Bethel High School. At a school assembly in April 1983, Fraser delivered a brief speech nominating a fellow student for office. The speech contained words which might have had a double meaning, with the second meaning referring to the act of sexual intercourse. In part, Fraser spoke as follows:
Students were required to attend the assembly, and about 600 were present, some as young as 14. During Fraser's speech, some students hooted and yelled, and a few mimicked the sexual activities they thought Fraser was describing. Others were bewildered by the entire incident. No evidence was presented thatanyone present was insulted or offended by Fraser's remarks.
Harsh Punishments for "Obscene" Language
The morning after the assembly, the assistant principal called Fraser into her office. School administrators, she told Fraser, had ruled that his speech violated a Bethel High rule prohibiting "obscene" language. The rule in question read: "Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane languageor gestures."
Fraser admitted having given the speech described, and he said that he had intended to use a sexual metaphor. He was suspended from school for three days.Moreover, his name was removed from the list of candidates for speaker at the upcoming graduation exercises. The school district's grievance process affirmed Matthew's punishment, but he enjoyed more success when he sued in the district court.
Students are Persons Too
Prior to this case, the Supreme Court had granted students some rights enjoyed by adults. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court had ruled that three students could not be suspended for peacefully wearing black armbands (to protest U. S. involvement in the Vietnam War). Students are "persons" and thus are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment right to free speech.
Relying on the Tinker decision, the district court had held that Bethel High violated Matthew Fraser's First Amendment rights. The court also had concluded that the school's rules were vague and overbroad. In particular, removal from the graduation speaker list was not mentioned among possible punishments. Removing Fraser from the list thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment'sdue process clause.
The district court awarded Fraser damages and costs (amounting to $13,028). It also ordered that the school allow Fraser to speak at the graduation ceremonies. Elected graduation speaker by a write-in vote, Fraser did deliver the speech.
Again referring to the Tinker decision, the court of appeals affirmedthe district court's judgement. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court.
Students Must Be Taught that Lewd Speech is Undemocratic
In reversing the lower courts, the justices ruled that the school district had the authority to punish Fraser. Joined by four others, Chief Justice Burgerwrote the opinion of the Court. Justices Blackmun and Brennan concurred withthe decision, but Brennan filed a separate opinion. Justices Marshall and Stevens filed dissenting opinions.
Burger declared that adults enjoy wide freedom in public discourse. However,"the constitutional rights of students in public school" are more limited than "the rights of adults in other settings." Burger argued that Tinkerdid not protect "offensive" speech. Nor did Tinker protect speech thatis "materially disruptive."
Schools exist, Burger continued, to instill "the fundamental values necessaryto the maintenance of a democratic political system." These democratic values "disfavor" the use of terms "highly offensive or threatening to others." Inteaching these values, teachers and older students serve as role models justas parents do in the home.
Chief Justice Burger also ruled that school officials did not violate Fraser's due process rights. The school's regulations gave Fraser sufficient noticethat "lewd" speech could subject him to sanctions. School rules need not be as rigidly precise as a criminal code.
What Some Considered Lewd Is Not Lewd to Others
Justice Brennan concurred with the majority's decision. However, he wrote a separate opinion that placed more limits on a school board's authority. Brennan stated that his colleagues grossly exaggerated in describing Fraser's remarks as "obscene," "vulgar," and "lewd." Having read the full text, Brennan found it "difficult to believe that it is the same speech the Court describes" The language Fraser used was very far indeed from the "very narrow class of `obscene' speech" that is not protected by the First Amendment.
School officials do not, Brennan argued, have a "limitless authority" to regulate student speeches, such as Fraser's. If they acted to ensure that the assembly proceeded in any orderly manner, then they had the authority to suspendFraser. But his speech might well have been protected "had he given it in school but under different circumstances."
In Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion, he argued that school officials never presented evidence that Fraser's speech had, in fact, disrupted educationat Bethel High.
Justice Stevens also dissented. Stevens argued that Fraser had no reason to think he would be suspended for the speech given. As the lower courts had correctly ruled, his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated becausehe did not receive "fair notice" of how the authorities would react.
The school rules forbade "disruptive" conduct. But there was no evidence thathis speech was disruptive. And his language--although it involved a sexual metaphor--was not obviously "obscene" or "lewd." Before giving the speech, Fraser had questioned three teachers regarding its propriety. None of them suggested that he might be suspended for giving the speech. Fraser thus had no reason, Stevens concluded, to anticipate that he would be punished.
Related Cases
Student Free Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court generally recognizes more limitations to a student's First Amendment rights than it does to an adult's. However, a student's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression are not left at the schoolhouse door. They cannot be punished for expressing personal views in the cafeteria, playing fields, classrooms, or halls unless school staff has reason to believe the educational process has been disrupted or other students' rights infringed. Yet, the Court recognizes that when considering First Amendmentrights, the special characteristics of a school's environment must be considered. Justice Byron R. White succinctly wrote, " A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission." For example, speech advocating drug use or irresponsible sex would be inappropriate.
Determining if speech is contrary to basic school values rests with the schoolboard, not the federal courts. School-sponsored publications, performing arts productions, and other forms of expression produced by students must teachthe lesson intended and be at an appropriate maturity level. To accomplish their educational goals, educators can require a higher standard of speech thanmight be demanded outside the school setting.
Sources
Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G. Walker. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1995.
Bethel School District in Pierce County, Washington State
Respondent
Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School
Petitioner's Claim
School authorities should be permitted to discipline students that use language those authorities consider offensive.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
William A. Coats, Clifford D. Foster, Jr.
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Jeffrey T. Haley and Charles S. Sims
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for theCourt), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
7 July 1986
Decision
The First Amendment did not prevent school authorities from disciplining Matthew Fraser for giving an "offensively lewd and indecent speech." School disciplinary codes only have to describe offenses in general terms; they need notbe as detailed as a criminal code, which imposes harsh punishments.
Significance
Bethel was only the second case dealing with the legal rights of students. The Court ruled that students do not enjoy the full protection accordedto adults. Schools may limit student speech both to prevent disruption and also to instill fundamental values.
Jeff Held Firm Convictions
Matthew Fraser was a student with an outstanding academic record at Bethel High School. At a school assembly in April 1983, Fraser delivered a brief speech nominating a fellow student for office. The speech contained words which might have had a double meaning, with the second meaning referring to the act of sexual intercourse. In part, Fraser spoke as follows:
I know a man who is firm--he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his characteris firm--but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel isfirm.
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.
Students were required to attend the assembly, and about 600 were present, some as young as 14. During Fraser's speech, some students hooted and yelled, and a few mimicked the sexual activities they thought Fraser was describing. Others were bewildered by the entire incident. No evidence was presented thatanyone present was insulted or offended by Fraser's remarks.
Harsh Punishments for "Obscene" Language
The morning after the assembly, the assistant principal called Fraser into her office. School administrators, she told Fraser, had ruled that his speech violated a Bethel High rule prohibiting "obscene" language. The rule in question read: "Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane languageor gestures."
Fraser admitted having given the speech described, and he said that he had intended to use a sexual metaphor. He was suspended from school for three days.Moreover, his name was removed from the list of candidates for speaker at the upcoming graduation exercises. The school district's grievance process affirmed Matthew's punishment, but he enjoyed more success when he sued in the district court.
Students are Persons Too
Prior to this case, the Supreme Court had granted students some rights enjoyed by adults. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court had ruled that three students could not be suspended for peacefully wearing black armbands (to protest U. S. involvement in the Vietnam War). Students are "persons" and thus are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment right to free speech.
Relying on the Tinker decision, the district court had held that Bethel High violated Matthew Fraser's First Amendment rights. The court also had concluded that the school's rules were vague and overbroad. In particular, removal from the graduation speaker list was not mentioned among possible punishments. Removing Fraser from the list thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment'sdue process clause.
The district court awarded Fraser damages and costs (amounting to $13,028). It also ordered that the school allow Fraser to speak at the graduation ceremonies. Elected graduation speaker by a write-in vote, Fraser did deliver the speech.
Again referring to the Tinker decision, the court of appeals affirmedthe district court's judgement. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court.
Students Must Be Taught that Lewd Speech is Undemocratic
In reversing the lower courts, the justices ruled that the school district had the authority to punish Fraser. Joined by four others, Chief Justice Burgerwrote the opinion of the Court. Justices Blackmun and Brennan concurred withthe decision, but Brennan filed a separate opinion. Justices Marshall and Stevens filed dissenting opinions.
Burger declared that adults enjoy wide freedom in public discourse. However,"the constitutional rights of students in public school" are more limited than "the rights of adults in other settings." Burger argued that Tinkerdid not protect "offensive" speech. Nor did Tinker protect speech thatis "materially disruptive."
Schools exist, Burger continued, to instill "the fundamental values necessaryto the maintenance of a democratic political system." These democratic values "disfavor" the use of terms "highly offensive or threatening to others." Inteaching these values, teachers and older students serve as role models justas parents do in the home.
The schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannotbe conveyed in a school that tolerates, lewd, indecent, or offensive speech. . . A high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexually explicitmonologue . . . Accordingly, it was perfectly appropriate for the school todisassociate itself to make the point to the pupils that vulgar speech and lewd conduct is wholly inconsistent with the "fundamental values" of public school education.
Chief Justice Burger also ruled that school officials did not violate Fraser's due process rights. The school's regulations gave Fraser sufficient noticethat "lewd" speech could subject him to sanctions. School rules need not be as rigidly precise as a criminal code.
What Some Considered Lewd Is Not Lewd to Others
Justice Brennan concurred with the majority's decision. However, he wrote a separate opinion that placed more limits on a school board's authority. Brennan stated that his colleagues grossly exaggerated in describing Fraser's remarks as "obscene," "vulgar," and "lewd." Having read the full text, Brennan found it "difficult to believe that it is the same speech the Court describes" The language Fraser used was very far indeed from the "very narrow class of `obscene' speech" that is not protected by the First Amendment.
School officials do not, Brennan argued, have a "limitless authority" to regulate student speeches, such as Fraser's. If they acted to ensure that the assembly proceeded in any orderly manner, then they had the authority to suspendFraser. But his speech might well have been protected "had he given it in school but under different circumstances."
In Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion, he argued that school officials never presented evidence that Fraser's speech had, in fact, disrupted educationat Bethel High.
Justice Stevens also dissented. Stevens argued that Fraser had no reason to think he would be suspended for the speech given. As the lower courts had correctly ruled, his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated becausehe did not receive "fair notice" of how the authorities would react.
The school rules forbade "disruptive" conduct. But there was no evidence thathis speech was disruptive. And his language--although it involved a sexual metaphor--was not obviously "obscene" or "lewd." Before giving the speech, Fraser had questioned three teachers regarding its propriety. None of them suggested that he might be suspended for giving the speech. Fraser thus had no reason, Stevens concluded, to anticipate that he would be punished.
Related Cases
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Student Free Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court generally recognizes more limitations to a student's First Amendment rights than it does to an adult's. However, a student's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression are not left at the schoolhouse door. They cannot be punished for expressing personal views in the cafeteria, playing fields, classrooms, or halls unless school staff has reason to believe the educational process has been disrupted or other students' rights infringed. Yet, the Court recognizes that when considering First Amendmentrights, the special characteristics of a school's environment must be considered. Justice Byron R. White succinctly wrote, " A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission." For example, speech advocating drug use or irresponsible sex would be inappropriate.
Determining if speech is contrary to basic school values rests with the schoolboard, not the federal courts. School-sponsored publications, performing arts productions, and other forms of expression produced by students must teachthe lesson intended and be at an appropriate maturity level. To accomplish their educational goals, educators can require a higher standard of speech thanmight be demanded outside the school setting.
Sources
Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G. Walker. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1995.
User Comments Add a comment…