The Board of Education of the Island Trees School District in New York directed the removal of nine books from the libraries of the Island Trees senior and junior high schools because in the Board’s opinion the books were «antiAmerican, antiChristian, antiSemitic, and just plain filthy.» Some books included were: The Fixer, Soulon Ice, Slaughterhouse Five, Go AskAlice, The Best Stories by Negro Writers, and others. Four students from the high school and one from the junior high school sued the school district, claiming that the removal of the books was a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
The court ruled against the school district saying that «students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the students, saying that the books were not required reading. According to Justice Brennan, who cited West Virginia Board of Education v. Bamette, 319 U.S.624 (1943), «Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in these books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.» He also cited Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S.503 (1969), saying that high school students have First Amendment rights in the classroom. Although the schools have a right to determine the content of their libraries, they may not interfere with a student’s right to learn. Therefore, the schools may not control their libraries in a manner that results in a narrow, partisan view of certain matters of opinion. The Court stood against the removal or suppression of ideas in schools.
Matthew Fraser, a high school student in Bethel, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech was made during school hours as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. The voluntary assembly was attended by about 600 students, many of whom were 14-year-olds. The reactions of the students varied from enthusiastic hooting and yelling to embarrassment and bewilderment. Before the speech, the student had discussed it with several teachers, and two teachers told him they thought it was not appropriate. The student was suspended for three days for having violated the school’s «disruptive conduct» rule, which prohibited conduct that substantially interfered with the educational process, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the school board acted entirely within its permissible authority in punishing Fraser for «his offensively lewd and indecent speech.» This was not a situation where Fraser was sanctioned for expressing a political viewpoint as in the Tinker «armband» case; the sexual innuendo was incidental to the merits of the candidate who was being nominated. «It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse . . . Schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order.»
Throughout the speech, the student deliberately referred to his loan places Pine Apple candidate in terms of an elaborate and explicit sexual metaphor
The Court repeated its recognition of an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language. Even in a heated political discourse among adults, the Court emphasized the need for consideration for the personal sensibilities of the audience. «A high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexually explicit monologue directed towards an unsuspecting audience of teenage students.» The Court also stated that the school regulation and the negative reactions of two teachers gave Fraser sufficient notice that his speech might result in his suspension.