HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT V. KUHLMEIER
Case name: Hazelwood School District, et al. v. Kuhlmeier, et al.
Year decided: 1988
Result: 5-3, in favor of Hazelwood School District
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (freedom of speech and press)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that school officials and teachers do not violate the First Amendment by applying editorial control over student speech as long as their actions "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The First Amendment does not require all types of student speech to be sponsored and schools are allowed to refuse to support speech that conflicts with "the shared values of a civilized social order."
Quote from majority opinion: "Accordingly, we conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for determining when a school may punish student expression need not also be the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Instead, we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
Summary of the dissent: As established in Tinker v. Des Moines, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" and school officials should not censor speech at "the slightest fear of disturbance." Censorship of ideas and opinions leads to the failure of educating children to respect diverse ideas.
Six-word summary: Principal censors, First Amendment not violated.
Year decided: 1988
Result: 5-3, in favor of Hazelwood School District
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (freedom of speech and press)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that school officials and teachers do not violate the First Amendment by applying editorial control over student speech as long as their actions "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The First Amendment does not require all types of student speech to be sponsored and schools are allowed to refuse to support speech that conflicts with "the shared values of a civilized social order."
Quote from majority opinion: "Accordingly, we conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for determining when a school may punish student expression need not also be the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Instead, we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
Summary of the dissent: As established in Tinker v. Des Moines, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" and school officials should not censor speech at "the slightest fear of disturbance." Censorship of ideas and opinions leads to the failure of educating children to respect diverse ideas.
Six-word summary: Principal censors, First Amendment not violated.