BY A LOS ALAMOS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT

Editor’s note: The following is one of a series of Op-Eds written by students in Adam Davis’s English 9 and 10 class at Los Alamos High School on free speech in schools. Some students have chosen to remain anonymous.

If you believe that students’ freedom of speech disappears when they walk into school because the school plays the role of a temporary parental figure, you’re mistaken. The First Amendment right protects everyone’s freedom of speech everywhere, including in schools. Oftentimes in school, students’ First Amendment freedom of speech is violated. For this reason, I’m going to talk about some examples of students’ freedom of speech being violated, such as the Tinker v. Des Moines court case, and why it’s important to protect students’ freedom of speech and expression.

Students’ freedom of speech in schools is protected by the First Amendment, a constitutional right that continues regardless of the setting; this includes an educational setting. As David R. Wheeler states, “The court vindicated Tinker by concluding that students do not shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Incidents like the Tinker v. Des Moines case emphasize how important it is to sustain this right. Constitutional rights are not circumstantial; they are universal and require a collective understanding of what is and is not appropriate speech.

While recognizing the need for appropriateness, it’s crucial to realize that constantly restraining students’ expression can suppress their creativity. Mary Beth Tinker rightly emphasizes that when she states, “If we don’t encourage young people to use their First Amendment rights, our society is deprived of their creativity, energy, and new ideas. This is a huge loss and a human rights abuse.”

The various views of teachers make it unfair to limit student speech based on individual discomfort. Creating and keeping a constant and common understanding within the school and community about acceptable speech is crucial. As the Supreme Court states, “In order for a school to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid discomfort and unpopular viewpoint.”

Defining inappropriate speech is very important. This can be seen in the Bethel v. Fraser (1986) case when it stated, “Matthew’s speech was filled with sexual innuendo. When he delivered the speech, many students called out, gestured, and laughed, while others looked confused and embarrassed. After the speech, Matthew was told he had violated the school’s conduct code.” A clearly intelligible code prevents confusion and allows students to handle restrictions responsibly and in a way that was universally agreed upon. 

Contrary views, such as Justice Clarence Thomas’s, want to dispense with Tinker’s case, pointing out the tension between parental expectations and school administration. As Justice Thomas argues, if he were given the opportunity, he would “dispense with Tinker altogether.” He explained that “without basis in the Constitution,” Thomas argued that Tinker “utterly ignored the history of public education” and that “schools, acting in place of the parents, should be able to govern students’ behavior, including limiting their speech.” A lack of agreement on acceptable speech can lead students to self-censorship, which in turn could affect their willingness to express new ideas and advocate for themselves.

Defining inappropriate speech is very important. This can be seen in the Bethel v. Fraser (1986) case when it stated, “Matthew’s speech was filled with sexual innuendo. When he delivered the speech, many students called out, gestured, and laughed, while others looked confused and embarrassed. After the speech, Matthew was told he had violated the school’s conduct code.” A clearly intelligible code prevents confusion and allows students to handle restrictions responsibly and in a way that was universally agreed upon. 

Contrary views, such as Justice Clarence Thomas’s, want to dispense with Tinker’s case, pointing out the tension between parental expectations and school administration. As Justice Thomas argues, if he were given the opportunity, he would “dispense with Tinker altogether.” He explained that “without basis in the Constitution,” Thomas argued that Tinker “utterly ignored the history of public education” and that “schools, acting in place of the parents, should be able to govern students’ behavior, including limiting their speech.” A lack of agreement on acceptable speech can lead students to self-censorship, which in turn could affect their willingness to express new ideas and advocate for themselves.

Work cited:

Beckwith, Maggie. “Free-Speech Rights Upheld in Modern-Day Tinker.” Student Press 

Law Center, 17 Dec. 2007, splc.org/2007/12/free-speech-rights-upheld-in-modern-day-tinker/. Accessed November 15, 2023

Wheeler, David R. “Do Students Still Have Free Speech in School?” Article. 7 April 2014. Accessed November 15, 2023

“Bethel V. Fraser (1986).” Landmark Supreme Court Cases Article. Accessed November 15, 2023