Bethel School District #43 vs. Fraser (1987)

The Speech

Arguments

Fraser:

• 1st amendment-Freedom of Speech
• Tinker vs. Des Moines: "Students don't abandon their Constitutional rights a the schoolhouse gate."
• Speech was not offensive
• More common than administration thinks

School District:

• Fraser's behavior was disruptive
• Made a mockery of the assembly
• Antagonistic towards the educational process
• Public high school/school sponsored event
• Schools need to have the authority to guide youth into positive behavior
• Students ≠ Adults
• Punished for the sexual innuendos not politics

What do you think?

Ruling & Decision

• 7-2 in favor of the school officials
• Schools may determine that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject the speech to sanctions.
• Freedom of speech does NOT extend to lewd speech in school

The Connection

Bethel School District #403 vs. Fraser

Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District

http://www.c-spanclassroom.org/Video/1128/Bethel+School+District+v+Fraser.aspx

(1:08-end)

• Chief Justice Burger pointed to "a vast difference between the political 'message' of the armbands in Tinker and the sexual content of Matthew Fraser's speech"
• "The schools, as instruments of the State, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused boy…. The discipline rule regarding obscene language gave Fraser adequate warning that his lewd speech would be punished…."

Background

Closing Thoughts

• On April 26, 1986 Matthew Fraser (12) gave a speech at Bethel High School in Piers County, Washington.
• Nominating fellow senior Jeff Kuhlman for Vice President
• Speech was given during school hours as a school sponsored educational event in self-governance to an audience of 600 students (ages 14-18)
• Prior to the speech Fraser spoke to several staff members, two of whom advised him against presenting the speech due to it's inappropriate nature.

Punishment

The Response

• Majority:

“The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society's countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.” (Chief Justice Warren Burger)

• Dissenting:

“It does seem to me, however, that if a student is to be punished for using offensive speech, he is entitled to fair notice of the scope of the prohibition and the consequences of its violation. The interest in free speech protected by the First Amendment and the interest in fair procedure protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment combine to require this result.” (Justice John Paul Stevens)

• Audience:
• Hooted and yelled
• Mimicked the activity described in the speech
• Others were shocked and embarrassed
• Administration:
• The next day spoke with Fraser claiming he violated the school "disruptive conduct rule"
• Fraser admits that there were sexual

innuendos in his speech

• 3 days of suspension and Fraser was taken off the ballot for graduation speaker (currently 2nd in his class)
• School administration "no longer had confidence in his judgement"
• His parents appealed the school's disciplinary action
• Washington Supreme Court sided with Fraser saying this is within his rights of free speech
• School district appealed to the supreme court

Disruptive Conduct Rule

• "Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures."

Impacts

Kiley Eichelberger

• Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly? NO
• Future court cases
• Student journalists can be punished for lewd speech in school published newspaper (public schools)
• Certain limits on Free Speech
• Not censored based on politics, viewpoints, or opinions
• Job of the school to regulate vulgar speech
• "fundamental values of public school education."

Bibliography

• "Bethel School District v. Fraser." Bethel School District v. Fraser. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2015. <http:/

bethelfraser.weebly.com/>.

• "Bethel School District v. Fraser | C-SPAN Classroom." Bethel School District v. Fraser | C-SPAN Classroom. C-Span

Classroom, 11 Feb. 2009. Web. 04 May 2015. <http://www.c-spanclassroom.org/Video/1128/Bethel+School+District+v+Fraser.aspx>.

• "Key Supreme Court Cases: Bethel School District v. Fraser (ABA Division for Public Education)." Key Supreme Court

Cases: Bethel School District v. Fraser (ABA Division for Public Education). American Bar Association, n.d. Web. 04 May 2015. <http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/bethel.html>.

• "Pics For Freedom Of Petition Cartoon." Pics For Freedom Of Petition Cartoon. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2015.

<http://pixshark.com/freedom-of-petition-cartoon.htm>.

• "Supreme Court Cases." Pearson Prentice Hall:. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2015. <http://www.phschool.com/

atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/bethel.html>.

• "Tinker Visual (p.2)." Tinker Visual (p.2). N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2015. <http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/

scales/tinkervis2.html>.