Sample Outline
Public School Student Speech (Tinker, Fraser, and Kuhlmeier)

1. Personal political expression by students while at school (Tinker)
a. A school is permitted to punish students for their personal political expression while at school if it can satisfy either of the two standards below:
1) the student speech caused actual substantial disruption of school activities
Not sufficient: student comments in hallways (as in Tinker) or in the cafeteria would not be sufficient.
Sufficient: disruption of classroom educational activities would be sufficient as would violent reactions to the speech.
 2) the school could reasonably forecast that the speech would cause substantial disruption.
Not sufficient: the view expressed is unpopular and many other students don’t agree with it.
Sufficient: the same speech caused substantial disruption at the school recently so it can be reasonably be anticipated the speech would be disruptive if it occurred again.

2. Student speech in a public school that is lewd, vulgar, indecent or profane (Fraser)
a. Such speech can be prohibited because public schools have the right to teach their students the “habits and manners of civility.” This is an exception to the use of the substantial disruption standard.
b. In cases involving this category of speech, there may be an issue as to whether the speech can be classified as lewd, vulgar, indecent or profane.
c. If student speech is lewd, vulgar, indecent or profane, the school can punish a student for using such speech without showing the speech produced any specific reaction.
d. The school is permitted to discipline students for their manner of expression (their particular word choices) and not based on the underlying message they sought to communicate.
e. It is unclear if such speech can be punished if it occurs anywhere within the school building, such as in a discussion at a table in the cafeteria, or whether it must occur during a class or as part of an official school activity such as the nominating speech at a school assembly at issue in Fraser.

3. Student speech that is part of a school-sponsored expressive activity where the student speech will be perceived as bearing the school’s stamp of approval (Kuhlmeier).
a. Speech within this category is another exception to the use of the substantial disruption standard.
b. Student speech that is part of a school-sponsored expressive activity includes “school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.” An example are the articles written for the school newspaper as in Kuhlmeier where students received academic credit, a grade, and were supervised by a member of the faculty.
c. The school can censor speech that falls within this category if its action is reasonably related to a legitimate educational objective. Legitimate educational objectives are very broadly interpreted. Two examples are that the speech is inappropriate for the maturity level of some of the students exposed to the speech and the the speech appears to attribute to the school a viewpoint that contradicts school policies.