Introduction
BETHEL VS. FRASER
On April 26, 1983, Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an explicit sexual metaphor.
Two of Fraser's teachers, with whom he discussed the contents of his speech in advance, informed him that the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it," and that his delivery of the speech might have "severe consequences."
Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of obscene language in the school provides:
"Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures."
The morning after the assembly, the Assistant Principal called Fraser into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of this rule, and that he would be suspended for three days.
Fraser's parents believed that his rights to free speech had been violated, and pursued a lawsuit against the school district; thus, Bethel vs. Fraser came into existence.
Task
THE CASE
Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?
Fraser claimed a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The District Court of Bethel ruled that the school distrcit violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of his from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
Process
THE APPELATE TRIAL
The school district appealed for another trial, in which the previous judgement had been overturned. This time, the Court upheld the school district. The Court held, by a 7-2 margin, that school officials acted within the Constitution by disciplining Fraser. Chief Justice Burger wrote for the majority. He pointed out that there was a huge difference between the protest in Tinker, which dealt with a major issue of public policy, and the lewdness of Fraser's speech. "The purpose of public education in America is to teach fundamental values," he wrote. "These fundamental values…must…include consideration of the political sensibilities of other students." The other two judges that dissented argued that free speech should be applicable in all times, not just in public matters.
Evaluation
IN THE END
the Bethel case shows the Court re-examining the issue of student expression in the schools and finding that certain limits on expression are permitted by the First Amendment.
The speech in question: "'I know a man who is firm -- he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm -- but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.
"'Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts -- he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally -- he succeeds.
"'Jeff is a man who will go to the very end -- even the climax, for each and every one of you.
"'So vote for Jeff for A. S. B. vice-president -- he'll never come between you and the best our high school can be.'"
