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  con...
Symbolic Speech (1969) Tinker vs. Des Moines~ Kids suspended for wearing armbands as a war  protest.~ School violated 1st...
Tinker vs. Des Moines Student speech cant interrupt learning;  the armbands did not. “Students and teachers do not shed ...
Lewd and Offensive Speech Bethel vs. Fraser (1986)~ Student was suspended for assembly  speech based on sexual metaphor.~...
School Sponsored Speech Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988)~ Right of school to control school  sponsored newspaper-experience...
School Sponsored Speechcont.~ School not required to promote  controversial speech.~ School action must be reasonably  rel...
Key Points Tinker- Cant suspend for an armband  unless disruption or invasion of others  rights Bethel- Lewd speech is a...
Protected Speech Must be actual or symbolic, meaningful  to the school community, convey a  message that is easy to under...
The End Dr. William Allan Kritsonis Professor PhD Program in Educational Leadership PVAMU/The Texas A&M University  Sy...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Student Freedom of Speech PPT.

519

Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Student Freedom of Speech PPT

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
519
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Student Freedom of Speech PPT.

  1. 1. Student Freedom of SpeechWilliam Allan Kritsonis, PhD
  2. 2. 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.
  3. 3. 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.
  4. 4. 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.”
  5. 5. 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.
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. School Sponsored Speechcont.~ School not required to promote controversial speech.~ School action must be reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical concern.
  8. 8. 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.
  9. 9. Protected Speech Must be actual or symbolic, meaningful to the school community, convey a message that is easy to understand.
  10. 10. The End Dr. William Allan Kritsonis Professor PhD Program in Educational Leadership PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×