Term Paper on "Bethal vs. Fraser"

Term Paper 5 pages (1672 words) Sources: 0

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Bethel v. Fraser

L. Jones

Bethel School District v. Fraser:

The Bethel School District v. Fraser (478 U.S. 675) may on some levels seem to some to be a bit trivial. However, it sets important precedent with regard to future actions a school or district may take concerning similar matters concerning public decency and free speech -- especially with regard to the actions of members of the student body.

In the case, Judge C.J. Burger delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States on July 7, 1986, concerning whether the First Amendment necessarily prohibits a school district from taking disciplinary action against a student for giving a "lewd" speech during a school assembly (Scarpinito, Lader, 2004).

In specific, the events concerned the actions of one Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High school in Washington State. In short, at a required assembly of approximately 600 students, Fraser presented a speech in which he referred to a student government opponent in terms of an "elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor" (UMKC, 2004). Not only did the student receive a warning from two teachers that it was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it," and that it was possible that its presentation may have "severe consequences (UMKC)," but it was observed that the reaction of the student audience to its presentation ranged from hooting, lewd gestures which "graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to in respondent's speech," to obvious embarrassment and bewilderment" (UMKC).

In response to the speech, the school invoked a Bethel High School rule which prohibited the use of obscene language or, "Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." (Findlaw, 2002) Further, this was particularly significant in that several teachers reported having to cancel planned lessons the following day in order to discuss the incident with class members (UMKC, 2004)." Thus, the school Assistant Principle notified Fraser that he violated the school rule, he admitted that he deliberately used the offensive language, and the Assistant Principle informed him that he would "be suspended for three days, and that his name would be removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement exercises (UKMD)."

In response to the school's decision, the student appealed via the School District's grievance system. When that failed (after the district concluded that the speech was, indeed, "indecent, lewd, and offensive to the modesty and decency of many of the students and faculty in attendance at the assembly." -- in short, falling under the umbrella of actions and speech defined as "obscene" (UMKC), the student's father brought an action against the school in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in which he sought "injunctive relief and monetary damages (UKMC)."

The District Court ruled against the school, awarded damages, litigation fees, and enjoined the school from preventing the student from future public speaking opportunities. Further, the Court of Appeals also concurred that the school was wrong and that the student's speech was protected speech. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this finding and found that unlike the protected speech cited by the previous courts represented by Tinker v. Des Moines (black arm bands in representative of a political position), that there is a "marked distinction" between the political message represented by the armbands and the sexual content of the Fraser speech. Further, that the case contained speech that intruded on the work and rights of other students was an important factor to the court. They further referenced that, like in the halls of the House and Senate of the United States, free speech cannot lapse in to "impertinence," and that it is "...highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse (Findlaw, 2002)." Further, the court also found that "The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board."

In short, the sexual content or innuendo in the student's speech was offensive to students and teachers. Thus, the Court basically found that "lewd and indecent speech" is not protected in the public school setting, and that the school and the district had the authority to both sanction, and prevent such speech within their schools (Kelsey, Y., 2004). Be that as it may, this does not mean that all matters of lewd speech are cut and dry. Thus, it must be understood from a school administrative point-of-view that the major issues concerning the inappropriateness of student speech, as well as the allowable consequences are as follows:

The speech must be "lewd and offensive" (as opposed to political, for example).

The speech must disrupt school activities/learning opportunities.

The speaker must be reasonably aware (i.e. informed via school handbook rules that such speech would be contrary to school rules, and be subject to disciplinary action.

Of course, the reason that having a good grasp of just what is offensive speech in this case gives the administration excellent guidelines for cases within their schools or district/s. Conversely, it also should give them a window into what kinds of speech are "protected" and not subject to disciplinary action.

Although given the reasoning of the Court above, it may seem obvious to school administration and other officials (especially within the schools, themselves), just what non-protected and actionable speech is. However, a useful tool that one can use to assess individual cases or incidents is the "Doctrine of Reasonable Test," which, in brief is as follows:

The power of school officials to establish rules and regulations are, although broad, subject to a standard of reasonableness.

In order for rules to be "reasonable," they must be vital to maintaining an organized and undisturbed school environment.

The rules must also be necessary to ensure the advancement of the educational development.

In order to insure that these guidelines for reasonableness are followed, it is helpful for school officials to have sufficient justification of the necessity to enforce school rules or policies (i.e., necessary for the educational process), that the rules not be unreasonably broad or arbitrary (they must easily allow for consistent and predictable interpretation), that the rules have imbedded indications of expected student behavior, that students of average intelligence can be expected to understand the rule's meaning. Thus, within the school handbook, for example, it may be wise for the administration or school officials to include specific language and/or examples in matters that may appear "open to interpretation." For example, although "offensive speech" may seem obvious to many adults and administrators, within the school setting, the term may be described in detail -- i.e., "Offensive speech is not allowed. This may include lewd or vulgar terms, innuendo (implied lewd terms or imagery), as well as threatening or implied threatening, physical representations of lewd acts or terms, as well as speech designed to offend, harm, or insult any individual, student, or staff member within the school setting."

Conclusions:

Although the student's speech in the Bethel v. Fraser speech was clearly offensive -- especially within a public school setting, and as a violation of school handbook rules, it did certainly point to a high level of intelligence (if lack of maturity), on the part of the student. One wonders whether a strict dogmatic approach exclusive of a more "educational approach" was really the best course of action in this case. This is because; although the need of teachers to "discuss" the incident in class the following day may have interrupted pre-scheduled "lesson plans," whether this is really an "interruption" of the educational process could in itself be subject to interpretation.

I would submit that the key notion that the process of education within the school was… READ MORE

How to Reference "Bethal vs. Fraser" Term Paper in a Bibliography

Related Term Papers:

Private Run Prisons vs. Government Run Prisons Who Does a Better Job Research Paper

Privately Operated Prisons vs. Government-Operated Prisons: Who Does a Better Job?

Private prisons are becoming an increasingly popular alternative to government-operated prisons, but the question remains, "Are these private corporations… read more

Research Paper 9 pages (2638 words) Sources: 9 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

School Retention vs. Social Promotion Term Paper

School Retention vs. Social Promotion

The data for this study will be collected using interviews conducted with key stakeholders such as parents, teachers, school administrators and students in four schools,… read more

Term Paper 3 pages (917 words) Sources: 4 Topic: Education / Teaching / Learning

---

Right Versus Right Decision-Making in Criminal Justice Administration Essay

Ethical Decision Making in Law Enforcement Management

In general, ethical decision making in public policy and law enforcement involves right-versus-right decisions rather than right-versus-wrong decisions because all of the stakeholders… read more

Essay 4 pages (1171 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

International Free Trade vs. Protectionism Essay

International

Free Trade vs. Protectionism

Free trade vs. protectionism is a debate that continues among those who think the government should control the financial system and those who want the… read more

Essay 4 pages (1356 words) Sources: 4 Topic: Economics / Finance / Banking

---

Metaphysics Versus Psychology Dissertation

METAPHYSICS vs. PSYCHOLOGY

Metaphysics and Psychology have historically been at odds with one another in what is an unnatural although real separation from a somewhat new science and its mother… read more

Dissertation 40 pages (13675 words) Sources: 30 Topic: Philosophy / Logic / Reason

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>