Case Study Critical Analysis: Emma Nelson And Manuela Santos

The best resolution of this lawsuit, given the materials that have been provided, is that the First Amendment should not prohibit schools from setting high standards for student speech distributed under their care, and that schools retain the right to refuse to support speech that is inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order. Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising control over the content of student speech so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate academic concerns. In the case of Emma Nelson and Manuela Snatos v. Degrassi Junio High, the actions of Principal Archie Simpson were valid. The rest of this paper will support this conclusion by examining previous cases.

The first issue to be discussed is that the speech interfered with the operation of the school. Some teachers at Degrassi Junior High expressed their concerns, and a few had to discipline certain boys during class for unruly action and speech that was provoked from girls wearing the bracelets. Undoubtedly, the “display” was causing teachers to struggle in keeping a tranquil environment for the students to learn things that the District, and ultimately the State, wants them to learn. Justice Black of the Tinker v Moines case states that a teacher is not paid to go into school and teach subjects that State does not hire him to teach as a part of its selected curriculum. Even if the “display” doesn’t alter the lesson plan, it is still a disturbance to the functioning of the school. The Justice also stated that even with few incidences of obscene remarks or boisterous/loud disorder, and in times when the students did not actually “disrupt” the classwork, the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly what the elected school officials and principal foresee they would, that is, took the students’ minds off their classwork and diverted them to thoughts about the “demonstrated” subject. Subsequent cases regarding schools and free speech overwhelmingly result in the same conclusion: that the First Amendment does not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech that is inconsistent with the fundamental values of public school education. This does not mean, unlike the ruling of the Tinker case, that a major upheaval or disturbance is needed. In ruling for Morse v Frederisk, where a student unraveled a sign that suggested the promotion of illegal drug use, the Court affirmed that the speech rights of public school students are not as extensive as those adults normally enjoy, and that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied. The original idea of schools was that children had not yet reached the point of experience and wisdom which enabled them to teach all their elders. Therefore, school officials should be given the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions.

This leads to the issue of offense and maturity level of the audience and the values that are to be learned in schools. In this case, Mr. Simpson explained that the junior high served students from ages 11-14: thus, had to be sensitive to the wide difference in student maturity levels. He described “boobies” as vulgar slang. According to previous cases dealing with ‘inappropriate’ subjects for young students, courts have addressed the need for schools to respect the sensitivities of the young mind- and have sided with the schools. In Bethel vs School District, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. Even though most students didn’t say anything, most looked shocked and offended. Another case, Hazelwood vs. School District, where two articles written by students were dismissed due to the obscene references and messages it contained, recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools “are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings”. The First Amendment guarantees wide freedom in matters of adult public discourse. It does not follow, however, that simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. Even in the maintenance of a democratic political system, there are fundamental values that are necessary. The system disfavors the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others.

Even though Emma’s intent or hope may have not been to cause offense or cause disturbance in the school, the messages written on the bracelets are not indistinguishable from her message. Emma’s intent is to raise awareness among girls her age, and the bracelets were meant to serve as conversation starters, as a means of helping young women talk about breast health. The messages written on the bracelets such as “I (heart) boobies”, were not very clear as to their purpose- especially to young boys. The message ended up being a sexual metaphor that may have been offensive to even the young women. In this case, the messages may have not been what they wanted it to be- therefore it doesn’t matter their intent- it’s what it said. In a case Morse vs. Frederick, Joseph Fredrick held up a banner with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” a slang reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. Frederick didn’t intend to promote marijuana smoking: instead, he just wanted to get the camera crews’ attention. But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use- the court sided with the Principal. In each of these cases, the main point was missed, and the nuisance that it generated to the specific audience it reached, prevailed.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. Principal Simpson was valid in that he noted that the bracelets are against the school’s dress code. The policy prohibits “clothing imprinted with nudity, vulgarity, profanity, and double entendre pictures or slogans. ” In addition, previous attempts at wearing similar things such as clothing promoting Hooters or Big Pecker’s Bar & Grill, as well as clothing with the phrase “Save the ta-tas” (from another breast cancer awareness campaign) were revoked. Schools have dress codes to promote a more serious school atmosphere which emphasizes academics and promotes good behavior among other reasons. In the case of Morse vs. Frederick, the principal justified her actions by citing the school’s policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs- which was upheld in court- ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use.

In most of the latter cases it was found that schools are a unique twist to the two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts- which were used in cases such as Tinker vs. Des Moines, Brandenburg vs. Ohio, and Texas vs. Johnson- which is: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) It is “likely to incite or produce such action”. Schools, under the sensitivities of their officials, can make decisions that are in the best interest of the operation of the school. Although, in this case, there were some actions that were provoked that could likely be classified under this test. Caitlin Ryan, a sixth-grade math teacher witnessed two boys in class who attempted to touch a nearby girl’s breasts. This can identify, in accordance with the ruling in Tinker vs. Des Moines, that it materially and substantially interfered with the operation of the school.

With Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court ruled that to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school. Evidently, the school district’s actions stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference. In this case being discussed, after two boys attempted to “materially and substantially interfere”, one was sent to the principal’s office for further disciplinary action. The boy in question was reprimanded and his parents were contacted. It seems to me that such an upheaval to “materially and substantially interfere” is prohibited in schools. Therefore, since in a school environment it is reprimanded when a student speaks/acts out of order, at what point will this law be effective. In the court rulings of Texas Vs. Johnson, it recognized that a principal “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger”.

In addition, the Texas vs. Johnson case stated that it would be odd indeed to conclude both that “if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection” and that the government may ban the expression of certain disagreeable ideas on the unsupported presumption that their very disagreeableness will provoke violence. Thus, we have not permitted the government to assume that every expression of a provocative idea will provoke a riot but have instead required careful consideration of the actual circumstances surrounding such expression, asking whether the expression "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. "