Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Student Freedom of Speech PPT

1. Student Freedom of
Speech
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2. Loco Parentis
 Acting in Place of Parents
 School Authorities are acting in Loco
Parentis and are not subject to the
constraints of the 4th Amendment.
 Before the 1960’s regulations were very
lose in this area and state courts rarely
and federal courts almost never got
involved in student vs. school affairs
regarding this.

3. Symbolic Speech (1969)
 Tinker vs. Des Moines
~ Kids suspended for wearing armbands as a war
protest.
~ School violated 1st and 14th amendment rights
~ Armbands were symbolic speech akin to pure
speech.

4. Tinker vs. Des Moines
 Student speech cant interrupt learning;
the armbands did not.
 “Students and teachers do not shed their
constitutional rights at the schoolhouse
gate.”

5. Lewd and Offensive Speech
 Bethel vs. Fraser (1986)
~ Student was suspended for assembly
speech based on sexual metaphor.
~ 1st and 14th amendment rights not violated
~ Schools can restrict speech that under
minds the basic educational mission.

6. School Sponsored Speech
 Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988)
~ Right of school to control school
sponsored newspaper-experiences of 3
pregnant students and students going
through divorce, in which principal took
out the articles.
~Articles not protected in 1st and 14th
amendments

7. School Sponsored Speech
cont.
~ School not required to promote
controversial speech.
~ School action must be reasonably
related to a legitimate pedagogical
concern.

8. Key Points
 Tinker- Cant suspend for an armband
unless disruption or invasion of others
rights
 Bethel- Lewd speech is always
unprotected.
 Hazelwood- School Sponsored content
is unprotected.

9. Protected Speech
 Must be actual or symbolic, meaningful
to the school community, convey a
message that is easy to understand.

10. The End
 Dr. William Allan Kritsonis
 Professor
 PhD Program in Educational Leadership
 PVAMU/The Texas A&M University
System