Marketing Research: The U.S. Constitutional Law in Education

[Your Name]
[Professor]
[Course title]
[Date]
The U.S. Constitutional Law in Education
Under the First Amendment, courts treat high school students different. The U.S court approved certiorari so that a decision can be made on if the First Amendment prohibits a school district from disciplining a student in high school that gave a lewd speech during a school assembly (Forsyth).The 26th of April 1983, a respondent, Matthew N. Fraser who was a high school student at Bethel High in Pierce, Washington, made a speech that nominated a student for an elective office. The speech referred to the candidate in a graphical, elaborate sexual metaphor and this led to the student`s suspension and his removal from a list of students that would deliver a graduation speech (Essex 1).
The Issue
Matthew Fraser, a high school senior at Bethel High School, delivered a speech nominating Jeff Kuhlman for Associated Student Body Vice President. The speech had sexual innuendos, without obscenity. The speech stated that:
I know a man who is firm-he is firm in his pants. He`s firm in his shirt, his character is firm- but most of all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. 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 please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he`ll never come [long pause] between us and the best our school can be. He is firm enough to give it everything.
Fraser had discussed this speech with two of his teachers, but they informed him on the inappropriateness of the contents of the speech and told him not to deliver the speech and if he delivers the speech, there might be severe consequences. When Fraser was delivering his speech, a school counsellor noted various students’ reaction to the speech. Some yelled, hooted, others graphically gestured simulated sexual acts pointed out in the speech, others were bewildered and embarrassed. After the assembly, the assistant principal informed Fraser that his speech had been a violation of Bethel high school disciplinary rule that prohibits using obscene language. The rule stated that “conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.” He admitted giving his speech and intentionally using sexual innuendo in the speech. He was suspended for three days and his name would be removed from the candidates` lists for graduation speakers (478 U.S. 675).
Holdings and reasons
Review of disciplinary action
Fraser pursued for a review of the disciplinary action via the School District Grievances procedures, but they determined that the speech was indecent and offensive to the decency and modesty of the faculty and students that were present in the assembly (Forsyth). The speech was obscene and was against the disruptive-conduct rule of the school and therefore, the discipline action was affirmed. Fraser adhered to two suspension days and he was allowed to go to school on the third day (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, a minor et al).
Bethel school district v. Fraser 478 U.S.675
Fraser as the respondent, his father as guardian Ad Litem, and the American civil liberties union corresponding attorney, Jeff Haley, filed a lawsuit against the school and took this action to the United States District Court, Western District of Washington. The respondent alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and he wanted injunctive relief and monetary damages that is under 42 U.S.C.1983. The U.S. District Court judge Jack Tanner, held that the sanctions of the school violated the right to freedom of speech of the respondent under the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution (478 U.S. 675). The court also held that the disruptive-conduct rule of the school is vague and overboard unconstitutionally and removing the respondent name on the list for graduation speakers violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, since the disciplinary rule does not mention such a removal as a probable sanction. The U.S. District Court awarded $278 for damages to the respondent and $12,750 for litigation costs and the fees for the attorney. The District Court also enjoined the school district from deterring the respondent to be part of the graduation speakers. The respondent that had been elected through his classmates’ write-in vote as a graduation speaker delivered his speech on the 8th of June 1983 (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, a minor et al).
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
The school district appealed to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but it ruled in the favour of Fraser in a broadly worded opinion. The court rejected the arguments of the school district that the respondent`s speech had a disruptive effect on the education process and that the school district was interested in protecting the audience of minors from indecent lewd language in a school setting. The court also rejected the school`s argument that it has the ability to control language used in expressing ideas in a school setting (Forsyth).
The United States Supreme Court agreed to consider the case after the school district asked. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the courts of appealed in a seven to two vote to restore suspension on the grounds that the policy of the school district was not in violation of the first amendment. This court opinion was delivered by chief justice Warren Burger. Justice William Brennan, Harry Blackmun concurred with the same opinion, whereas, John Paul Stevens and Thurgood Marshall dissented. The court’s decision distinguished from Tinker v Des Moines that upheld students’ rights in expressing themselves with non-disruptive words that are not connected with the school. Fraser’s case limits this ruling through restricting other expression styles that are vulgar sexually (478 U.S. 675).
School children do not have a first amendment right to deliver obscene speeches in school. The school environment is under permissive authority to determine rules and punishments or sanctions for the behaviour of students. A school setting dwells on creating respectful civilized citizens. Therefore, acting in a manner that suggests the student is in violation of the rules would not be acceptable on a school sponsored event. The school audience is made up on teenagers and the sexual content expressed on the speech would create an environment of understanding human sexuality in a vulgar manner. The court re-examined the issues of student expression and the limit of the expression that is allowed in school and permitted by the First Amendment. The officials of schools are in control of the content of a school sponsored event or function and they also have a duty to instil moral values in students and encourage civility.
Arguments
The respondent would have not delivered the speech in case he would have known that it would result in him being suspended and being disqualified from giving his graduation speech. The respondent consulted three teachers, two of who testified. None of the teachers told the respondent that he was violating the school rules and that the speech could lead to suspension or disqualification from activities (Essex 44, 62). In addition, free expression applies in such a situation as the respondent had a right to speech as of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Fraser`s speech was sexually innuendo and offensive to the faculty and students or any mature person. Glorifying the male sexuality in a verbal content was insulting to teenage female students. The speech is also damaging to a minor audience that is under fourteen years old as they get a threshold of human sexuality awareness. This was clear from the student’s reaction of the speech in bewilderment, embarrassment and mimicry.
Furthermore, a high school assembly is not a podium for explicit sexual monologue that is received by teenage students and unexpected audience. It was appropriate for the school to disassociate themselves with the situation and make sure that their students are not practicing vulgar speech and lewd and indecent conduct that is not according to the fundamental school values in public school education.
Finally, the First Amendment does not restrict school district from defining that accepting vulgarities and lewd indecent speech like the respondent`s would indeed weaken the discipline of the school and the basic education mission of schools. The school district acted in permissible authority and its imposition of sanctions on Fraser was in response to his behaviour (Essex 83).
Board of Education of Independent School District of Potawatomie County v. Earls (2002)
Introduction
The U.S Supreme Court upheld the constitutionally random drug test regimen that was done in public schools in Verona, Oregon. Athlete students were needed to submit to randomize drug tests before they could take part in sports. This brought about Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
The issue
Drugs started becoming a major problem in Vernonia in the late 1980s as administrators and teachers observed. Students were attracted to the drug culture and the school district at the time would not do much about it. More drug usage resulted into more disciplinary issues in schools and in Vernonia schools, disciplinary issues was steadily rising at an alarming rate. Students were rude and they had profanity language outbursts. Of the students, student athletes made up the majority of the students using drugs and they were the leaders of the drug culture. This brought about sport related injuries. The school district offered classes and created awareness ...