First Amendment In Schools

According to Warnick (2010), schools serve three interests: (1) to legitimately develop future democratic citizens; (2) to act on behalf of parents, and respond to parental preference; and (3) to act on behalf of the students, themselves (p. 205). All of the interests presented provide a legitimate argument for modifying student speech rights, but does little to clarify in which direction it should lean. Since Tinker, subsequent First Amendment cases have been heard, but none have produced the same powerful precedent. In fact, the scope of its application has arguably only become more blurred. In Warnick, Rowe, and Kim (2009), Justice Clarence Thomas was the one justice who did not support the Morse decision. He declared that students …show more content…
The significance of the case can be found in the protection of student’s constitutional rights. Not only did the case address those sacred rights, but also specifically supported the fact that students maintain those rights while in school so long as they do not result in a “material and substantial” disruption. “Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky recently wrote that, ‘the most important question about Morse is how it will be understood and applied by school officials, school boards, and lower court judges” (Kozlowski et al., 2009, p. 139). Further, Kozlowski et al., maintains that while the Court has never officially overruled Tinker, subsequent decisions have limited its reach and shown more deference to school officials (p. 140). “Dupre shows that in the span of just one generation, the Supreme Court shifted its stance toward public from suspicion to deference” (Ferré, 2009, p. …show more content…
294). John Jay, one of the authors of The Federalist Papers and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court proposed that all members of a society should not only read their constitution, but also be dedicated to ensuring that the younger generation becomes versed in their rights. When students know their rights, they are in a position to recognize when those rights become threatened, and can be prepared to defend them (as cited by Warnick, Rowe, & Kim, 2009, p. 157). Court cases provide a rationale by which members of society are able to function according to the legal interpretation. The landmark decision of Tinker provided a rationale for student expression rights unparalleled to this day. Fraser and Hazelwood followed by somewhat leveling the scales in favor of schools, but still offering protection for students’ rights. Because schools face the unique challenge of providing for the safety of all students without violating their protected speech rights, it is difficult to maintain a fair balance. “Thus, a standard that ensures school administrators have the ability, and perhaps even the mandate, to investigate any student speech which purports to threaten the physical or emotional safety of the school or its students and staff is essential” (Ceglia, 2013, p. 978). These Supreme Court cases establish the boundaries set on free expression in schools. Because