Where the Wild Things Are

Wednesday, March 31

After coming to the conclusion through site tracking that law firms have been known to read my blog, I thought I'd post my recent paper criticizing a recent Supreme Court decision. Please note that all work is my own; if you would like to cite this please notify me. In addition, I possess footnotes, legal citations, and bibliography for any of the sources quoted, including a copy of Fraser's original speech, if this type of document interests you. Thanks.

The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Bethel School Districts in Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) was unconstitutional in nature and unwarranted in character. Decisions favoring the case violate Constitutional arguments, including the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment. In addition, the general grounds for penalization had no substantive merit. Finally, the verdict runs contrary to such other Supreme Court cases as Tinker v. Des Moines, Goss v. Lopez, and Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. As a result, the Supreme Court decision concerning Bethel School District v. Fraser created several effects that can be viewed as erroneous from a contemporary perspective.

The issue itself involved Matthew Fraser, a Washington high school student who gave a student government nomination speech containing sexual innuendos to about six hundred students in a school-sponsored assembly. While the speech was being read, the audience responded with snickers, and obscene, suggestive gestures. Fraser was then promptly suspended for three days after violating his school’s “Disruptive Conduct” rule. He and his father sued the school district, arguing an encroachment on Matthew’s First Amendment rights. The U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District, both ruled in favor of Fraser, awarding him damages . However, when the school district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of Bethel School Districts, citing the US Constitution.

The decision against Fraser is problematic under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in part, "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." As a result, individual liberties are protected by the Constitution, and laws passed by states should possess a legitimate and reasonable purpose. Fraser was penalized by a local school district, which adhered to regulations in compliance with state and federal judgments. Yet the school’s “Disruptive Conduct” rule made no mention of possible removal or penalization for disturbances. Fraser’s suspension is a direct deprivation of liberty, because his speech had already been given, and the event had already occurred, the school system had no reason to banish Fraser from the school grounds.

Fraser also noted in his legal argument that punishment for his language violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Because the framers of the Constitution decreed “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," freedom of speech and expression became fundamental tenants of American law. Fraser’s accusation concerning his essential human rights was backed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Supreme Court, a common defender of important cases that violate First Amendment liberties. Because they are essentially instruments of the state government, public schools are bound to follow the First Amendment.

Moreover, past instances addressing the question of freedom of speech for minors have already articulated that a substantial disruption is still Constitutionally sound. The Court acknowledged in Tinker v. Des Moines that “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Fraser’s speech is essentially the same as Tinker wearing an armband, because both expressions are forms of conveying a particular idea or statement. Indeed, the Court of Appeals ruled that the difference between armbands and the election speech is indistinguishable, and that an educational setting should not hinder the extent of minors’ laws. Because of this correlation, the Supreme Court should have upheld the principles established in Tinker v. Des Moines.

In addition, two other previous cases contradict the Supreme Court’s judgment against Fraser. Goss v. Lopez, which ruled that “Students facing temporary suspension from a public school have property and liberty interests that qualify for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” confirms the conclusion that the discipline administered to Fraser was extreme. Considering that Fraser had never before violated any school policies, the privileges revoked—a three-day suspension and disqualification from speaking at his school’s graduation—were austere consequences for a minor offense. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. further stresses the context of Fraser’s speech, that a “nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.” Fraser’s intent to gain the support of his peers compelled him to create a speech that would capture their attention. The obscenity level of the comments certainly did not exceed those typically exchanged in more private conversations throughout a high school campus. Indeed, students present at the assembly hardly responded differently—or more disruptively—than those in attendance at any other official event. Furthermore, despite accusations of obscenity, Fraser’s father had no trouble serving as a respondent guardian ad litem to his son’s case.

However, the in loco parentis principle states that the school serves as students’ guardians during the day. Yet although Fraser previewed his statements for three teachers before addressing his school, none of the faculty mentioned the “Disruptive Conduct” rule, or any sort of consequences that might result from his reading the speech. Justice Stevens commented that “teachers' responses certainly did not give him any better notice of the likelihood of discipline than did the student handbook itself.” Additionally, though four teachers wrote complaints after the event, there were no accusations of Fraser specifically damaging the educational process. Because of this, the contents of Fraser’s speech deemed “obscene” have been stretched beyond the scope of traditional disciplinary policies.

Today, both Fraser and his lawyers still argue against the Supreme Court’s decision. Jeffrey T. Haley, who represented the ACLU at Fraser’s hearing, commented in 2001 that "Because the purpose of school is education, it is important to teach students about our government and the Bill of Rights…If a student's speech is not obscene before a student assembly, then I would draw the line in favor of allowing the student speech." The most obvious affect of Fraser’s loss is the decrease in student liberties while on campus, as well as the inability for students to exercise their Constitutional provisions. The ability of the Courts to restrict Fraser’s First Amendment privileges has also created a difficulty in addressing contemporary high school freedom-of-speech cases. Because of the vague definition concerning obscenity, cases citing Fraser have ranged between those of school-sponsored student expression to displaying vulgar messages on articles of clothing.

Though the final ruling of the Supreme Court reversed the district courts’ decision, Fraser was eventually elected by a popular majority write-in vote to speak at Bethel High School’s graduation ceremony. Undoubtedly, students and several teachers supported Fraser’s action—as do larger considerations of law. The Constitution, prior Supreme Court judgments, and the true merit of the school’s accusations all pose arguments critical of the decision reversing the District Courts. Bethel School Districts v. Fraser raises important issues regarding freedom of speech and the courts’ interpretation thereof.