Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 3.
Justice White delivered the opinion of
the Court.
We have nonetheless recognized that the First
Amendment rights of students in the public schools "are not
automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other
settings" . . . and must be "applied in light of the special
characteristics of the school environment" . . . A school
need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with
its "basic educational mission." . . . even though the
government could not censor similar speech outside the
school.
We deal first with the question whether Spectrum may
appropriately be characterized as a forum for public
expression. The public schools do not possess all of the
attributes of streets, parks, and other traditional public
forums that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes
of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and
discussing public questions." . . . Hence, school facilities may
be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities
have "by policy or by practice" opened those facilities "for
indiscriminate use by the general public," . . . If the
facilities have instead been reserved for other intended
purposes, "communicative or otherwise," then no public forum
has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable
restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other
members of the school community.
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. The former question addresses educators'
ability to silence a student's personal expression that
happens to occur on the school premises. The latter question
concerns educators' authority over school-sponsored
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.
Educators are entitled to exercise greater control
over this second form of student expression to assure that
participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed
to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to
material that may be inappropriate for their level of
maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are
not erroneously attributed to the school. Hence, a school
may in its capacity as publisher of a school newspaper or
producer of a school play "disassociate itself," . . . not
only from speech that would "substantially interfere with
[its] work . . . or impinge upon the rights of other
students," . . . but also from speech that is, for example,
ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched,
biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for
immature audiences. A school must be able to set high
standards for the student speech that is disseminated under
its auspices -standards that may be higher than those
demanded by some newspaper publishers or theatrical
producers in the "real" world-and may refuse to disseminate
student speech that does not meet those standards. In
addition, a school must be able to take into account the
emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining
whether to disseminate student speech on potentially
sensitive topics, which might range from the existence of
Santa Claus in an elementary school setting to the
particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school
setting. A school must also retain the authority to refuse
to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived
to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or
conduct otherwise inconsistent with "the shared values of a
civilized social order," Fraser, supra, at 683, or to
associate the school with any position other than neutrality
on matters of political controversy. . . .
Accordingly, we
conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for
determining when a school may punish student expression need
not also be the standard for determining when a school may
refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination
of student expression. Instead, we hold that educators do
not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial
control over the style and content of student speech in
school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their
actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
concerns.
. . . It is only when the decision to censor a
school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or
other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational
purpose that the First Amendment is so "directly and sharply
implicate[d]," ibid., as to require judicial intervention to
protect students' constitutional rights. . . .
We also
conclude that Principal Reynolds acted reasonably in
requiring the deletion from the May 13 issue of Spectrum of
the pregnancy article, the divorce article, and the
remaining articles that were to appear on the same pages of
the newspaper.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit is therefore
Reversed.
Questions
to Consider:
- According to the opinion, do students have the same
rights as adults in the "real world"?
- Is the Spectrum a "public forum"? Why is this an
important distinction to make?
- What distinction does the Court make between the cases
of Tinker v. Des Moines and Hazelwood v.
Kuhlmeier?
- Explain, in your own words, why the Court believes
educators should be able to exercise greater control over
school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and
other expressive activities than over student expression
that happens to occur on the school premises.
- What does the Court mean by "legitimate pedagogical
concerns?"
- In your opinion, should a school be able to refuse to
sponsor student speech that "might reasonably be perceived
to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or
conduct otherwise inconsistent with 'the shared values of
a civilized social order,' . . . or to associate the
school with any position other than neutrality on matters
of political controversy?" Should a school be able to
refuse to allow students to independently express such
opinions? Why or why not?
- React to this statement: "A school must be able to set
high standards for the student speech that is disseminated
under its auspices - standards that may be higher than those
demanded by some newspaper publishers or theatrical
producers in the 'real' world - and may refuse to
disseminate student speech that does not meet those
standards." Should standards in schools be different from
standards in the "real world?" Why or why
not?
|
