Key
Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion
The case
was decided 5 to 3.
Justice Brennan, with whom Justice
Marshall and Justice Blackmun join, wrote the dissenting
opinion.
When the young men and women of Hazelwood
East High School registered for Journalism II, they expected
a civics lesson. Spectrum, the newspaper they were to
publish, ". . . was a . . . forum established to give
students an opportunity to express their views while gaining
an appreciation of their rights and responsibilities under
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. . . .
"If mere incompatibility with the school's pedagogical
message were a constitutionally sufficient justification for
the suppression of student speech, school officials could
censor each of the students or student organizations in the
foregoing hypotheticals, converting our public schools into
"enclaves of totalitarianism," . . . that "strangle the free
mind at its source," . . . The First Amendment permits no
such blanket censorship authority. While the "constitutional
rights of students in public school are not automatically
coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,"
Fraser, supra, at 682, students in the public schools do not
"shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate," Tinker, supra, at 506.
Just as the public on the street corner must, in the
interest of fostering "enlightened opinion," . . . tolerate
speech that "tempt[s] [the listener] to throw [the speaker]
off the street," . . . public educators must accommodate some
student expression even if it offends them or offers views
or values that contradict those the school wishes to
inculcate.
In Tinker, this Court struck the balance. We held
that official censorship of student expression-there the
suspension of several students until they removed their
armbands protesting the Vietnam war-is unconstitutional
unless the speech "materially disrupts classwork or involves
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. .
. . "
Official censorship of student speech on the ground
that it addresses "potentially sensitive topics" is . . .
impermissible. . . . The case before us aptly illustrates
how readily school officials (and courts) can camouflage
viewpoint discrimination as the "mere" protection of
students from sensitive topics. . . .
. . . Such unthinking contempt for individual rights is
intolerable from any state official. It is particularly
insidious from one to whom the public entrusts the task of
inculcating in its youth an appreciation for the cherished
democratic liberties that our Constitution
guarantees.
Questions to Consider:
- Justice Brennan says that the Spectrum was a "forum"
for student expression. From what you read in the majority
opinion, why is this an important distinction?
- What does Justice Brennan fear will happen if schools
are allowed to censor material that differs from their
pedagogical message?
- What did the Tinker decision say? What does Justice
Brennan think of that decision? Do you agree or disagree
with him? Why?
|
