Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens By and Through Mergens
Facts: Westside High School denied permission to students to create a Christian club with equal privileges as other student clubs in the school. The school wouldn’t let them form the club based on the Establishment Clause. The students sued as they believed the school violated the Equal Access Act. The Court of Appeals voted in favor of the students
The Issue: Is a public school preventing the formation of a Christian club justified by the Establishment Clause. or is it unlawful because of the Equal Access Act?
The Rule: 8-1 in favor of Mergens By and Through Mergens
The Holding: If a school allows for clubs to be “non curriculum”, then it is prohibited under the Equal Access Act from denying equal access to any club based on their beliefs and speech.
The Rationale: The proposed Christian club would be a noncurriculum group as no course required students to become members of the club, and its subject matter would not be taught in classes, it did not concern the school’s cumulative body of courses, and its members would not receive academic credit for their participation. To uphold the Equal Access Act is needed to avoid discrimination against student religious views. The Court stated that because it served an overriding secular purpose by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of free speech, the Equal Access Act was constitutional
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Facts: Students of Hazelwood East High School’s student run newspaper, The Spectrum, though the school was violating their First Amendment after they [the school] would not let the paper post two articles due to being “inappropriate”.
The Issue: Was the school not letting The Spectrum post their articles a violation of the students’ First Amendment rights.
The Rule: A 5-3 decision siding with Hazelwood School District
The Holding: The court ruled that the First Amendment did not require schools to positively promote all types of student speech.
The Rationale: As the newspaper was under the school’s sponsorship, they hold the right to refuse all speech that is “‘inconsistent with ‘the shared values of a civilized social order.’’” As long as the banned material is done so with legitimate concerns, it is not offending the First Amendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
Facts: In December 1965, a group of students planned to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War in Des Moines, Iowa. The principal of the local school learned of the plan and made a rule stating if any student was seen with an armband, they would be asked to remove it, failure to do so would result in a suspension. Two teenagers who wore the bands were sent home, the next day, another kid was sent home as well. Their parents sued the school district for violating their right of expression. The district court stated that the school was in the right and they needed to hold up school discipline.
The Issue: Does a ban on wearing armbands, as a protest, in a public school violate students’ freedom of speech, covered by the First Amendment?
The Rule: 7-2 decision siding with Tinker
The Holding: The Supreme Court stated that the armbands represented a pure speech that is separate from the actions of those participating in it, and the students do not lose that right when they step into school.
The Rationale: Because students hold their right to free speech in school, they can act on that as long as it is not interfering with the school’s ability to operate. Des Moines Independent Community School acted before there was an actual disruption, therefore not in the right. There is a difference in communication through word and action, leaving children without a full guarantee for the full extent of the first amendment.
The disposition: THE SCOTUS revered the previous rulings.
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
Facts: A student used a sexual innuendo at a school assembly. He got suspended for two days as a result.
The Issue: Does the First Amendment protect a student from making a lewd speech at a school assembly without discipline?
The Rule: 7-2 ruling siding with Bethel School District
The Holding: The Court ruled a school can prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language.
Rationale: There is a difference between political speech, like in Tinker in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School, and a speech which holds supposed sexual content, like Fraser’s. Lewd language was inconsistent with the “fundamental values of public school education”, therefore can be banned.
This past class changed my outlook on the Ahmed Mohamed situation. When this went down I strongly believed the school and cops were in the wrong. It is a fourteen year old boy after all! But after listening to the reasoning why what happened was wrong, changed my mind. The argument did the opposite for me. One of the points was everything looks like a bomb if you take its casing off of it, well that may be true, but if he brought the inside of TV in, the English teacher should still have reported it. If anything looks suspicious it is the teachers duty to report it for the safety of the students and fellow staff. If it was something and she did nothing about it, she could have been at participial fault for not reporting it. I do believe the cops should not have hand cuffed him if he did not fight back. The picture of the boy circulating was someone’s fault, and they should be penalized as he was a fourteen year old child, so unless it was his parents, the picture in that type of situation, should not have been released. This incident brings how far is a students freedom in school. Were students feeling uncomfortable by the clock, which caused a disruption? If so, the school had another reason to stop the clock from being out.