"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our school can be. He is firm enough to give it everything." [Long pause after the word "come" on oral delivery, but no comma in the written version, according to Matthew N Fraser]Fraser appealed through the grievance procedures of his school, but was found to be in violation of a school policy against disruptive behavior. Fraser was suspended for two days from his school and wasn't allowed to speak at his graduation ceremony and his name was taken off the ballot used to elect graduation speakers. Fraser was still elected by a write-in vote but Bethel High School administrators refused to accept it and they denied Fraser the opportunity to speak at graduation. Fraser responded by filing a lawsuit against the school claiming a violation of his First Amendment right and the U.S. District Court ruled in his favor.
The school district then appealed the decision to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which also ruled for Fraser. The school district asked the United States Supreme Court to consider the case and it agreed to do so. In a 7 -2 decision the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appeals Court and upheld the suspension. The Court distinguished this case from Tinker v. Des Moines, which upheld the right for students to express themselves where their words are nondisruptive and could not be seen as connected with the school, the ruling in Fraser can be seen as a limitation on the scope of that ruling, prohibiting certain styles of expression that are sexually vulgar.
I would have to agree with the Supreme Court on this one. I can see how the speech would have be disruptive and it really didn't have any real purpose but for the language and the way he delivered the speech. There was no need for that speech nad hte school has a right to control what goes on in its walls. Where I disagree with the school would be not accepting the school's vote. They took his name off the ballet only to be elected on a write in that should have been accepted. At least he still was allowed to actually be at graduation
ReplyDelete