Tinker, Fraser, and Kuhlmeier Standards

a. Tinker applies to student speech in a public school in the form of personal political expression. If Tinker applies, to justify discipline of students for their expression, the school must show either 1) the student speech caused actual substantial disruption of school activities or 2) the school could reasonably forecast that the speech would cause substantial disruption.

b. Fraser applies to student speech in a public school if the speech is lewd, vulgar, indecent or profane. Under Fraser, 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. When the school disciplines students for speech that falls within these specific categories, it is permitted to do so without showing the speech had any particular impact; in other words without satisfying Tinker, and without satisfying any other test or standard. The Supreme Court has not clarified whether Fraser applies to all in-school speech or only speech that occurs as part of a school-sponsored activity such as the assembly at which Fraser nominated his friend for student government elective office.  

c. Kuhlmeier applies to 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. 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 to include making sure that students “are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school.” Other legitimate educational objectives include making sure the speech does not interfere with other educational activities, interfere with “the rights of other students,” and is not “ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences.” Moreover, public schools “retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with ‘the shared values of a civilized social order’ or to associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.”