BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT
v.
MATTHEW FRASER
92 L.Ed.2d 549, 106 S.Ct. 3159

Argued March 3, 1986
Decided July 7, 1986

On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for a student elective office. Approximately 600 high school students, from ages 14 to 18, were required to attend the assembly or to report to study hall. The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self government. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of "elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor." However, no obscene language was used.

Fraser discussed his speech with three of his teachers. Two of the teachers testified at the trial that they informed Matthew the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it." They also mentioned that the speech might have "severe consequences," but none of the three suggested that the speech might violate a school rule.

Matthew gave his speech, during which a school counselor observed the reaction of students. Some hooted and yelled; others appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. One teacher reported that on the day following the speech, she found it necessary to forego a portion of the scheduled class lesson in order to discuss the speech with the class.

A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibited the use of obscene language in the school:

The morning after the assembly, the assistant principal called Matthew into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of this rule. Fraser was given copies of five letters written by teachers that described his conduct at the assembly. He was asked to explain his conduct, and he admitted to having deliberately used sexual innuendo in his speech. The assistant principal informed Matthew that he would be suspended for three days and would be ineligible as a candidate for graduation speaker at the school's commencement exercises.

Matthew went to the school's hearing officer for a review of the disciplinary action. The hearing officer determined that the speech Matthew gave was "indecent, lewd, and offensive to the modesty and decency of many of the students and faculty in attendance at the assembly." The examiner determined that Matthew had indeed violated the school rule and should be punished. Matthew served two days of his suspension and was allowed to return to school on the third day.

Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged that the school had violated his son's First Amendment right to freedom of speech as incorporated with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule made no mention of removal as a possible punishment. The District Court agreed with the Frasers and awarded Matthew $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation costs and attorney fees, and stopped the school from preventing Matthew from speaking at the commencement ceremonies. Matthew had been elected graduation speaker by a write-in vote of his classmates and delivered a speech at the commencement on June 8, 1983.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court, rejecting the school district's argument that the speech had a disruptive effect on the educational process. The Court of Appeals also rejected the school district's argument that it had an interest in protecting an essentially captive audience of minors from lewd and indecent language in a setting sponsored by the school. The Court of Appeals rejected the school district's argument that, incident to its responsibility for the school curriculum, it had the power to control the language used to express ideas during a school-sponsored activity.

• ISSUE: Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect a student's right to deliver a vulgar and offensive speech at a school assembly, in violation of a school disciplinary rule?