Bethel+School+District+v+Fraser

**Bethel School District v Fraser**

**Important Dates:** Argued: March 3rd, 1986 Decided: July 7th, 1986

 **Premise:** Mathew Fraser, a senior at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington, spoke to a school assembly to nominate a classmate for an office in student government. His speech was filled with sexual references and innuendos, but contained no obscenities. The school administration suspended Fraser for three days and removed him from the list of students eligible to make graduation remarks. (Fraser was second in his class at that time.) His parents appealed the school's disciplinary action in the state courts and when the Washington Supreme Court agreed his free speech rights had been violated, the school board appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 **Issue:** Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?

 **Opinion of the Court:** As the public school system teaches not only through books and class, but through example, by demonstrating the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. As Fraser's speech was plainly offensive to both students and staff, it could be damaging to its less mature audience. In the interest of protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language, the administraters were in the right carrying out their discipline.

 **Concurring Opinion:** Brennan wrote a concurring opinion stating that the remarks referred to by the court as "obscene," "vulgar," "lewd," and "offensively lewd," leads to the conclusion that school officials properly punished respondent for uttering the speech. Having read the full text of respondent's remarks, he found it difficult to believe that it was the same speech the Court described. He thinks the most that could be said about respondent's speech is that in light of discretion given to school officials as they have to teach high school students how to conduct civil and effective public discourse, and to prevent disruption of school educational activities, it was not unconstitutional for school officials to conclude, under the circumstances of this case, that respondent's remarks exceeded permissible limits.

 **Dissenting Opinion:** Stevens gave a dissenting opinion stating that the student is entitled to fair notice of the scope of the prohibition and the consequences of its violation because of the interest in free speech protected by the First Amendment and the interest in fair procedure protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

**References** American Bar Association. (n.d.). Key Supreme Court Cases: Bethel School District v. Fraser (478 U.S. 675, 1986). Retrieved from [] Unknown. (n.d.). Bethel School District No. 403 et al. v. Fraser, a minor, et al. Retrieved from []