Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Student Freedom of Speech PPT.
Student Freedom of SpeechWilliam Allan Kritsonis, PhD
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
School Sponsored Speechcont.~ School not required to promote controversial speech.~ School action must be reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical concern.
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.
Protected Speech Must be actual or symbolic, meaningful to the school community, convey a message that is easy to understand.
The End Dr. William Allan Kritsonis Professor PhD Program in Educational Leadership PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.