Comparative Analysis of Key Legal Cases in Education

Comparative Analysis of Landmark Education Cases and Socioeconomic Conditions

Abstract

The intention of this paper is to compare key legal cases in the field of education and to identify the socioeconomic conditions at the time of each. This is a comparison of six legal cases: Tinker v. Des Moines, Burnside v. Byars, Blackwell v. Issaquena, Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick. These cases originate from different decades and can provide background to the balance between constitutional rights and the need for schools to provide an education to students.

Introduction

These six legal cases have determined the interaction of students' rights and the needs of a school to provide a distraction-free education. Each of these cases has played a role in setting the limits of a student's constitutional rights and the authority of the schools in regulating the free speech of students. Identifying the legal and ethical considerations of these cases is essential for understanding the role of constitutional rights in the educational environment.

The 1960s: Unrest, Inequality, and Political Speech

Tinker v. Des Moines

In the late 1960s, under the influence of the Vietnam War, there was a heightened feeling of social unrest. Many were protesting the United States’ involvement in the region of Vietnam and the resulting death and destruction. Economic disparities in who would be drafted to go to war and the perception of racial lines that influenced those who had to fight the war were at the forefront of these protests. The draft disproportionately affected poor and working-class men, as college enrollment provided deferments; in 1966, only 1.2% of college students were drafted, compared to 40% of draft-eligible men without college deferments.

With this backdrop, students at a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, intended to wear black armbands in a silent protest of the Vietnam War. The principal of the school was informed of the plan to wear the armbands and threatened that the students would be suspended if they followed through with wearing the armbands to class. The principal put forth that the armbands would be a distraction to the learning environment. Although the principal warned against the wearing of the armbands, several students chose to do so. These students were subsequently suspended for disobedience of the rule. During the suspensions, the student’s parents (Mary Beth Tinker and John Tinker) brought a lawsuit against the school claiming that the student's rights to free speech had been violated. The US District Court and the appeals court sided with the school; therefore, the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court sided with the students, asserting that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” (Facts and Case Summary - Tinker V. Des Moines, n.d.).

Burnside v. Byars

The mid-1960s was a time of social change. The Civil Rights movement and anti-war protests dominated the national narrative. During this time of political activism, Burnside v. Byars (1966) emerged and reflected the conditions of the time. The focus of civil rights efforts was on economic and political equality; for example, in 1966, the median income for Black families was only approximately 58% of the median income for white families, underscoring the fight against systemic disenfranchisement.

In 1966, this case was brought by students of Philadelphia, Mississippi. Students at the school started a movement to wear what they described as “Freedom Buttons.” These buttons were intended to encourage African-American students to use their Constitutional rights. The buttons contained the phrase “one man one vote.” This was intended to show support for the use of the vote to further African American civil rights by voting for politicians who would support the changes that the Civil Rights movement was adopting.

The principal of the school, upon learning of the students wearing the buttons, announced that wearing the buttons would not be permitted. The buttons did not have any “bearing on their education” and “would cause commotion.” Thirty to forty students were found to be wearing the buttons and the principal gave them a choice of removing the buttons or being sent home. Many of the students chose to return home and were subsequently suspended.

Some of the students filed suits claiming that the school prohibition against the buttons violated the student's right to free speech and expression, therefore violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The school maintained that disallowing the buttons was a reasonable restriction that upheld discipline in the school.

The Supreme Court ruled that the restriction on the buttons was unreasonable and that the school could not infringe on the student's rights to free expression when the act did not substantially interfere with school discipline. (Burnside V. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966), n.d.).

Blackwell v. Issaquena

Again, with the backdrop of the mid-sixties’ Civil Rights movements, school officials attempted to control a student's right to freedom of expression. The students were again wearing the freedom buttons to class. This case differs from Burnside v. Byars in that the wearing of the buttons presented a substantial disruption to the school.

Students began wearing the buttons and attempted to pass out buttons in the school corridors. The students also attempted to force other students to wear the buttons and on occasion pinned the buttons to students' clothes without the request of the students. In one instance, a student began crying because the button was pinned without request. This was the cause of the disruption to school discipline that the school administrators objected to. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could require the buttons to be removed since it was causing such a disturbance at the school. (Blackwell V. Issaquena County Board of Education, 1966).

The 1980s: Conservatism, Authority, and School Speech

Bethel School District v. Fraser

In the mid-1980s, the United States had seen a resurgence of conservative thinking in political discourse. The election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States and the rise of the "Moral Majority" influenced the nation. Reagan’s successful 1984 re-election, which he won in 49 out of 50 states, demonstrated widespread public support for socially conservative policies that emphasized traditional authority in public institutions like schools. In 1986 a Supreme Court case came forth that would decide if schools could regulate free speech in certain situations.

In Peirce County, Washington, at Bethel High School, Matthew Fraser, a student, gave a speech to nominate a fellow student to the student government. During the speech, Fraser used a series of sexual double entendres within his speech. The school administration found that Fraser violated rules against vulgar speech in the school. Fraser was subsequently suspended and barred from speaking at graduation. Fraser then brought suit against the school claiming a violation of the First Amendment. Fraser was successful in the district court and the ninth circuit court upheld the ruling of the district court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled against Fraser stating that the school had the right to sanction vulgar speech. The school is charged with teaching appropriate speech to students. Furthermore, the speech was not political in nature and not protected by the First Amendment. (Bethel School District V. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), n.d.).

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

In 1988, again with the backdrop of conservative thought taking control of political discourse in the country, students at Hazelwood East High School wrote articles in the school newspaper. These articles contained stories about other students' experiences with teen pregnancy. This issue was a major policy concern of the era, as the U.S. teen birth rate remained high, registering 51.8 births per 1,000 females aged 15–19 in 1986. When they published these articles in the school-sponsored and financed newspaper, the principal deleted these articles prior to publication without telling the students that the articles had been deleted.

The students claimed that the deletion of the articles violated their First Amendment rights. The student then filed a lawsuit against the school. The U.S. District Court ruled that the school had the authority to remove the articles from the newspaper as they were written as part of a class. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court reversed the lower court decision stating that the articles could only be removed in extreme circumstances because the newspaper extended beyond the walls of the school.

The Supreme Court ruled that the school could censor the newspaper and that it did not violate the students’ rights. The paper was not intended to be a public forum where the students could write whatever they wanted and had to fall into the parameters set by the journalism course for which it was a part.

The 2000s: Drug Policy and Safety Concerns

Morse v. Frederick

In 2007, the Supreme Court was again faced with a decision about free speech in schools. This case occurred during a time when the federal government maintained a strict "War on Drugs," spending an estimated $12.3 billion on initiatives in 2007, demonstrating a compelling government interest in suppressing drug promotion.

At an Olympic torch rally, Joseph Frederick held up a sign that read “Bong hits for Jesus.” Frederick's attendance at the event was part of a school-supervised activity in which he was taking part. Frederick was told by the school principal to put away the sign as it could be seen as promoting illegal drug use. Frederick refused to put away the sign. The principal took away the sign and subsequently suspended Frederick for ten days. Frederick filed a lawsuit claiming a First Amendment rights violation.

The Court ruled that a student's rights are not violated when the speech could be seen as promoting illegal drug use. The majority cited Tinker v. Des Moines which stated that a school could not censor free speech when that speech was political and did not disrupt the school. The promotion of illegal drug use was not political speech. The court also cited Bethel v. Fraser and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier which put forth that speech could be restricted when it disrupted school functions or was not political.

Conclusion

Some believe that the Supreme Court is influenced by the politics of that day. The Supreme Court is an unelected body that does not answer to voters for the decisions they make. However, according to Robert Dahl, it does not matter if the court is unelected. The court is still subject to the influences of the majority (Norpoth, H., Segal, J. A., Mishler, W., & Sheehan, R.,1994). With the justices being appointed by the nomination of the President and the advice and consent of the Senate, this would lead to influence from politics in their decisions. Many studies have shown that the court is usually not out of line with public opinion (Norpoth, H., Segal, J. A., Mishler, W., & Sheehan, R.,1994).

However, by studying the cases that have been reviewed here, the Supreme Court has been consistent in its rulings. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff when the speech that was being restricted was political in nature (Tinker, Burnside). By contrast, the Supreme Court ruled against the student when the speech lacked a political nature (Fraser, Morse) or was a product of a school-sponsored activity (Hazelwood). Also, the Supreme Court has been consistent that free speech can be restricted by schools when the speech is disruptive (Blackwell).

The Bible says that we have freedom of choice and free speech to say whatever we think is part of that choice. But the Bible also warns us of the consequences of those choices. Adam and Eve had the freedom to make a choice and they chose incorrectly. Therefore, they had consequences for the choice they made to eat from the forbidden tree (Genesis 2:15–25). Paul also wrote that we should use free speech, but we should not use “corrupting” speech. This speech is comparable to theft. As stealing is associated with non-believers, corrupting speech is also a sign of those who do not know Christ (Ephesians 4:29).

References

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). (n.d.). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/675/

Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Educ. (1966, July 21). casetext.com. https://casetext.com/case/blackwell-v-issaquena-county-board-of-educ

Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966). (n.d.). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/363/744/264045/

Facts and Case Summary - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. (n.d.). United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier

Facts and Case Summary - Tinker v. Des Moines. (n.d.). United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines

Norpoth, H., Segal, J. A., Mishler, W., & Sheehan, R. (1994). Popular influence on Supreme Court decisions. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 711+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A16076513/BIC?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=d61a97b3