Artifact 2

Hazelwood School District

v.
Kuhlmeier
Presented by: Thomas DeGrand & Evan Rokicki
EA 742- Education Law
Supreme Court Presentation
July 29, 2015

Syllabus
3 High school students (staff members of schools
newspaper) filed suit in Federal District Court against
district and school officials.
Alleged that First Amendment rights were violated
(principal objected to/deleted two articles- one describing
students experiences with pregnancy; other discussing
impact of divorce on students at the school). 5/13/83
Principal- felt pregnancy article could lead to anonymity
issues; felt divorce article did not give parents a chance to
give their input

Syllabus, Continued
District Court held...no First Amendment rights were violated
(1985)
First Amendment rights not consistent with outside school if
not related to its basic educational mission
School newspaper not a forum for public expression (district
may impose reasonable speech restrictions- following district
policy)
Educators can exercise editorial control in school-sponsored
activities if reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
concerns
Principal acted reasonably
Court of Appeals reversed (1986)

Reminder: Tinker v. Des Moines

Students in the public schools do not shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression
at the schoolhouse gate...unless school authorities
have reason to believe that such expression will
substantially interfere with the work of the school or
impinge upon the rights of other students.

Opinion- by Justice White

District Court
Decision: No First Amendment Violation (1985)

Why?
School officials may impose restraints on students speech in
activities that are an integral part of the schools educational
function. (legitimate pedagogical concerns)
publication of school-sponsored newspaper
Principals concern for pregnant students anonymity was
legitimate and reasonable.
Principals actions shielded younger students from exposure to
unsuitable material.
Principals actions avoided invasion of privacy (divorced parents)

Opinion- by Justice White

Court of Appeals
Decision: First Amendment Violation (1986)

Why?
Spectrum (school newspaper)- public forum that was intended
to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint.
Spectrum could not be censored except when necessary to
avoid material and substantial interference with school work or
discipline...or the rights of others. (Tinker v. Des Moines)
No evidence that principal could have forecasted disrupted
classwork or substantial disorder.

Opinion- by Justice White

Supreme Court
Decision: No First Amendment Violation (1988) (5-3)

Why?
Agree with District Court (pregnancy- anonymity / divorce- consent or
response)
Different than Tinker- A school need not tolerate student speech that is
inconsistent with its basic educational mission, (Fraser) even though
the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.
School newspaper is not a public forum- reserved for other intended
purposes, communicative or otherwise
legitimate pedagogical concerns- Board Policy 348.51
School officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech
of students, teachers, and other members of the school
community.

Opinion- by Justice White

Supreme Court- Reasons for decision, cont.
School officials can retain editorial control of schoolsponsored activities when:
legitimate pedagogical concerns
substantially interferes with work
impinges upon rights of other students
ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or
prejudiced, vulgar or profane, unsuitable for immature audiences

advocates drug/alcohol use or irresponsible sex

Dissent- by Justice Brennan

Why the Supreme Courts decision was wrong:

Tinker- students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom

of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
Articles did not disrupt classwork nor invade the rights of others.
Articles frustrated schools legitimate pedagogical purpose, but it
did not prevent the school from pursuing its pedagogical mission.
Spectrum was a forum for students to express their views while
gaining appreciation of their First Amendment rights.
Board Policy 348.51 (...will not restrict free expression or
diverse viewpoints within the rules of responsible journalism.)
fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the
right to freedom of expression.

Dissent- by Justice Brennan

Why the Supreme Courts decision was wrong (cont.):

Principals brutal manner of censorship:

never consulted students prior to censoring
paper shredder
excised 6 articles (objected to only 2)
never sought out alternatives (precise deletions, additionsdisclaimer or school response, rearranging layout, delaying
publication)

Question...
Based on what youve heard today and what
weve learned in this class, how would you
have ruled had you been a Justice on this
case?