Bethel v. Fraser1981

Regional Training, Government-End-of-Course Application1

Lesson opener:Directions: Project the following statement, then give students ten minutes to formulate a response in writing, one they can defend using the U.S. Constitution. Select several students to read their answer and record their responses. Collectively, have students look for similarities and differences and see if they can reach a consensus.

Should public school officials, such as principals or superintendents, be allowed to regulate or prohibit student speech based upon the topic and content of the speech? Explain.

Quotations:Directions: Explain to the class the following statements which come directly from the Justices involved in deciding Tinker v. Des Moines. The opinion represents how the majority of Justices vote, and the dissenting statements represent those justices who do not agree.

Project the following statements or distribute a “writeable” handout to all students and have the students individually respond to the following questions.

1. Underline the words you do not know or could have a special meaning and look them up. 2. In your own words (paraphrase), state what this quotation means and how it applies to your constitutional rights as a student.3. Were there any social or political events in 1965 that impacted this case?

After approximately 15 minutes, randomly select several students to read their responses and discuss the following:

1. Did everyone underline the same words and have the same meaning? Why or why not?2. Did everyone arrive at the same meaning and conclusion for each statement? Why or why not?3. Why does the Supreme Court allow Justices to voice dissenting opinions?4. How do these quotes/opinions demonstrate the importance of the case?

1 Created by Russ Sackreiter for The Missouri Bar, Department of Citizenship Education, Dr. Anthony Simones, Director;2019

1

Opinion:Justice Burger"Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public-school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions...The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order."

Justice Burger“The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers -- and indeed the older students -- demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models. 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.”

Dissent:Justice Stevens"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."“When I was a high school student, the use of those words in a public forum shocked the Nation. Today Clark Gable's four-letter expletive is less offensive than it was then. Nevertheless, I assume that high school administrators may prohibit the use of that word in classroom discussion and even in extracurricular activities that are sponsored by the school and held on school premises. For I believe a school faculty must regulate the content as well as the style of student speech in carrying out its educational mission. 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.”

Justice Stevens“The fact that the speech may not have been offensive to his audience -- or that he honestly believed that it would be inoffensive -- does not mean that he had a constitutional right to deliver it. For the school -- not the student --

2

must prescribe the rules of conduct in an educational institution. But it does mean that he should not be disciplined for speaking frankly in a school assembly if he had no reason to anticipate punitive consequences.One might conclude that respondent should have known that he would be punished for giving this speech on three quite different theories: (1) it violated the "Disruptive Conduct" rule published in the student handbook; (2) he was specifically warned by his teachers; or (3) the impropriety is so obvious that no specific notice was required.”

Interpretation:Directions: Project the following cartoon or distribute a copy to all students on a “writeable” handout and have the students individually respond to the following questions.

1. Who are the main characters in this cartoon? How do they relate to you as a student?2. What is the primary purpose of “political/current event cartoons?3. After looking at the graphic, what conclusion did you reach? Explain.4. List the “mental steps” you went through to arrive at your conclusion.5. Does this graphic/cartoon apply to any current events or situations today?

Short answer:

3

Directions: Project the following prompt or distribute a copy to each student on a “writeable” handout, and have them individually read, then write a brief paragraph responding to the following questions.

The Supreme Court in Bethel v. Fraser was confronted with First Amendment rights and their application to public school students giving a speech into front of a “captive school audience.” Balancing the rights asserted in Tinker v. Des Moines the Court had to determine if obscene/profane language and graphic sexual metaphor met the standard of protected speech for public school students while not disrupting the educational environment.

Do you feel public administrators should be the sole judges in determining what is obscene/profane language and graphic sexual metaphor? Explain.

Some would argue that “acceptable speech” varies from generation to generation and consequently each public school should create a review panel each year, comprised of an equal number of students and administrators, with equal votes to set the speech standards for the coming year. Do you agree or disagree? Explain.

Sources: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/bethel-v-fraser-1986/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667

http://usedulaw.com/177-bethel-school-district-no-403-v-fraser.html

Video Sources:Fire Starters; Bethel School District v. Fraserhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz7ur3ScVDI

Examining Student Free Speech: Bethel School District v Fraser (1986)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMW6dXY1C8g

4

C-Span-Bethel School District v. Fraserhttps://www.c-span.org/video/?c4618207/bethel-school-district-v-fraser

5