Case Name: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Year: Argued 1987 ; Decided 1988
Result: 5-3 in favor of Hazelwood School District
Related Constitutional Issue/ Amendment: 1st Amendment dealing with speech, press, and assembly
Civil Rights or Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties
Significance/ Precedent: The Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech and they are no required to promote specific speech spoken or written. Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The ruling of this case showed that even though we have certain rights, these rights can be limited depending on where you are (ex. school). This case was significant because it showed that all Americans have rights but these rights may be limited in certain issues or places. Also the decision overrode the precedent set in the Tinker case.
Quote from Majority Opinion: "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. ... (Judicial action to protect students' rights is justified) only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose."
"The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech—the question 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 students' 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."
6-Word Summary: School district can restrict students speech
Year: Argued 1987 ; Decided 1988
Result: 5-3 in favor of Hazelwood School District
Related Constitutional Issue/ Amendment: 1st Amendment dealing with speech, press, and assembly
Civil Rights or Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties
Significance/ Precedent: The Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech and they are no required to promote specific speech spoken or written. Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The ruling of this case showed that even though we have certain rights, these rights can be limited depending on where you are (ex. school). This case was significant because it showed that all Americans have rights but these rights may be limited in certain issues or places. Also the decision overrode the precedent set in the Tinker case.
Quote from Majority Opinion: "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. ... (Judicial action to protect students' rights is justified) only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose."
"The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech—the question 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 students' 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."
6-Word Summary: School district can restrict students speech