478 U.S. 675 (1986)
On April 26, 1983, Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech at a school assembly nominating a fellow student for student elective office.1 Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14 years old, attended the assembly, which formed part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government.2 Students were required to attend the assembly or report to study hall.3 During the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate using an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.4
Two teachers with whom Fraser discussed the contents of his speech in advance informed him that the speech was inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it.5 During the delivery, a school counselor observed that some students hooted and yelled while others graphically simulated the sexual activities alluded to in the speech, and some appeared bewildered and embarrassed.6 One teacher found it necessary the following day to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson to discuss the speech with the class.7 The school maintained a disciplinary rule stating that conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.8
The morning after the assembly, the assistant principal called Fraser into her office, notified him that the school considered the speech a violation of the rule, presented him with copies of five letters from teachers describing his conduct, and after he admitted giving the speech and deliberately using sexual innuendo, 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.9 Fraser served two days of the suspension.10 He sought review through the school district's grievance procedures, where the hearing officer determined that the speech was indecent, lewd, and offensive to the modesty and decency of many students and faculty and affirmed the discipline in its entirety.11
Fraser, by his father as guardian ad litem, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.12 The district court held that the sanctions violated his First Amendment rights, that the disruptive-conduct rule was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that removal of his name from the graduation speaker list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, awarding him $278 in damages and $12,750 in litigation costs and attorney's fees while enjoining the district from preventing him from speaking at commencement.13 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.14 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.15
Whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly?16
Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.17 The constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.18 The First Amendment does not prevent school officials from determining that permitting a vulgar and lewd speech would undermine the school's basic educational mission.19 School officials may teach the habits and manners of civility and protect a captive audience of minors from exposure to lewd speech.20
No. Applying the rule to the established facts shows that Matthew N. Fraser delivered a speech at a school assembly nominating a fellow student for office before approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14 years old.21 He referred to his candidate using an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.22 Two teachers had informed Fraser in advance that the speech was inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it.23
During delivery some students hooted and yelled while others graphically simulated the sexual activities alluded to in the speech, and some appeared bewildered and embarrassed.24 The school maintained a disciplinary rule prohibiting obscene language that materially and substantially interferes with the educational process.25 The penalties imposed were unrelated to any political viewpoint.26 The school acted within its authority to disassociate itself from the speech to make the point that vulgar speech is inconsistent with the fundamental values of public school education.27
The First Amendment does not prevent the school district from disciplining the student for giving the lewd speech at the school assembly.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment.29 He wrote separately to emphasize that the holding is narrow.30 It concerns only the authority of school officials to restrict a high school student's use of disruptive language in a speech given to a high school assembly.31
If the same speech had been given outside the school environment, it could not have been penalized simply because government officials considered the language inappropriate.32 The language used was far removed from the narrow class of obscene speech unprotected by the First Amendment.33 The case did not involve an attempt to ban written materials or limit what students should hear or learn.34
Justice Marshall dissented because in his view the School District failed to demonstrate that respondent's remarks were indeed disruptive.35 The District Court and Court of Appeals conscientiously applied Tinker and concluded that the School District had not demonstrated any disruption of the educational process.36
He recognized that the school administration must be given wide latitude to determine what forms of conduct are inconsistent with the school's educational mission.37 Nevertheless, where speech is involved, courts may not unquestioningly accept a teacher's or administrator's assertion that pure speech interfered with education.38 The School District failed to bring in evidence sufficient to convince either of the two lower courts that education at Bethel School was disrupted by respondent's speech.39
Whether the circumstances of the student's suspension violated due process because he had no way of knowing that delivering the speech would subject him to disciplinary sanctions?40
School disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions.41 Maintaining security and order in the schools requires a degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures.42 The school's disruptive-conduct rule proscribing obscene language and the prespeech admonitions of teachers gave adequate warning that lewd speech could subject the student to sanctions.43 A two-day suspension does not rise to the level of a penal sanction calling for the full panoply of procedural due process protections.44
No. Applying the rule to the established facts shows that Fraser was presented with copies of five letters from teachers describing his conduct, was given a chance to explain, and admitted giving the speech and deliberately using sexual innuendo.45 Two teachers had warned him in advance that the speech was inappropriate and might have severe consequences.46 The disciplinary rule prohibited the use of obscene language, and the hearing officer determined that the speech was indecent, lewd, and offensive before affirming the discipline in its entirety.47 Fraser served two days of the three-day suspension.48
The circumstances of the student's suspension did not violate due process.49
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens dissented and focused on the requirement of fair notice.50 If a student is to be punished for using offensive speech, he is entitled to fair notice of the scope of the prohibition and the consequences of its violation.51 Stevens examined the disciplinary rule, the specific warnings by teachers, and the question of obvious impropriety.52
The rule was ambiguous.53 The teachers' warnings did not clearly indicate that the speech would violate a school rule or result in discipline.54 It was not so obviously offensive that an intelligent high school student must be presumed to have realized he would be punished.55