Document Type
Commentary
Publication Title
Harvard Law Review
Publication Date
1988
Volume
102
First Page
271
Abstract
(Excerpt)
Public educators in the United States are expected to pass on to their students—to inculcate in them—the shared values of their community. This communication of values is essential to the continued vitality of American culture and to the social, moral, and political education of students. Yet inculcation of community values cannot be allowed to trample students' individual liberties; public educators must strike a delicate balance between the state's educational interests and the students' rights to self-expression. Although the striking of this balance should initially be left to local educators, when value inculcation impermissibly interferes with students' constitutional rights, courts must intervene.
Nineteen years ago in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court held that school officials cannot interfere with student speech unless such speech would "materially disrupt [] classwork or involve [] substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." Focusing on the school's need to maintain order, the Tinker Court emphasized the constitutional significance of students' right to expression and, as a result, substantially limited educators' ability to choose the values they instill in their students.
More recently, however, the Court has retreated from its vigilant protection of students' rights and has allowed educators increasing control over student expression. Last Term, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Court continued its retreat from Tinker by severely limiting the settings within which students may exercise first amendment rights under the Tinker standard. In effect, the Court struck a new balance that favors inculcation at the expense of student liberty.
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons