When you think about First Amendment Supreme Court cases in an educational context, you probably think of Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case stating that students and faculty do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter an educational institution, but that schools have the right to restrict student speech if it poses a “substantial disruption or material interference” to their learning environment.
Since Tinker, the Supreme Court has taken on other cases and fleshed out the First Amendment rights of students in a K-12 context, such as Bethel v. Fraser, or Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, but the court has been more conflicted over the application of these rights in colleges. Let’s take a look at three landmark cases regarding the First Amendment and public universities. The scope of student rights at public colleges and universities continues to evolve through court decisions, and a Columbia, MO Student Protection Lawyer can help students understand how constitutional protections may apply when disputes arise involving free speech, campus policies, or disciplinary actions.
Healy v. James
Three years after Tinker, the Court took on Healy v. James. A group of students at Central Connecticut State College sought recognition from the university as a campus organization to form a chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Official recognition would allow the group to use university facilities and communication channels. The students stated that they would not be affiliated with the national SDS organization. The university president denied the group recognition on four grounds:
- Belief of affiliation with the national organization despite the group’s insistence that they were unaffiliated,
- Belief that the philosophy of the group was aligned with the national organization, which the president deemed to be abhorrent,
- Belief that the group would be a disruptive influence on the campus,
- And the claim that the group must have prior affirmation of reasonable university rules before they can have recognition.
The students brought the issue to the federal District Court, and the district court agreed with the university president on the basis that the group was “likely to cause violent acts of disruption”. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the lower court decisions should be reversed. The Court reaffirmed its dedication to safeguarding academic freedom and stated that “state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment.”
Papish v. Board of Curators
The precedent set by Healy was crucial in the decision-making of the next case, Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri. In 1969, Barbara Papish, a graduate student at the University of Missouri, was expelled for distributing a campus newspaper that the University claimed contained “indecent content or speech”. The newspaper cover depicted police officers sexually assaulting the Statue of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice, with the caption “… With Liberty and Justice for All”. Within the newspaper, an article used an expletive in the title, as a reference to a New York criminal trial that had just concluded. Papish was expelled in the middle of the spring semester but was permitted to remain on campus, although she was not given credit for the course she passed in that semester. Papish brought action to the Western District Court of Missouri, where she was denied relief on the grounds that the newspaper was obscene.
The lower court decision was decided several days before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of student free speech and expression in Healy. The Supreme Court decided to take on Papish and ruled that the lower court decision be revoked. The Court says “[w]e think Healy makes it clear that the mere dissemination of ideas — no matter how offensive to good taste — on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’” Also, the Court ruled that neither the cover nor the article was constitutionally “obscene” and therefore protected.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
One of the more recent landmark cases regarding the First Amendment rights of public university students is Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, At the Hastings College of the Law (Hastings), a group of students sought to form a chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS). The bylaws of CLS state that all members must sign and live by a Statement of Faith, which includes a statement that sexual activities should only occur within the context of heterosexual marriage.
The law school holds a non-discrimination policy that says that student organizations cannot discriminate in membership and must accept all students who would like to join. Because of this policy, Hastings refused CLS student organization recognition, stating that their bylaws were exclusionary on the basis of religion and sexuality. CLS asked for an exemption from the non-discrimination policy. The group was denied exemption, but Hastings did allow them to meet on campus property. CLS decided to sue, saying their First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and practice of religion were infringed.
In their argumentation, CLS argued that Hastings should replace their non-discrimination policy with one that allows for exclusion on the basis of belief but not of status. In her majority opinion statement, Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the line between ‘belief and status’ can be muddled by ill-intentioned actors. She says, “If a hypothetical Male-Superiority Club barred a female student from running for its presidency, for example, how could the Law School tell whether the group rejected her bid because of her sex or because, by seeking to lead the club, she manifested a lack of belief in its fundamental philosophy?” CLS argued that their exclusion of LGBTQ+ people was not on the basis of their sexuality but on the basis that they believe in an activity the group deems immoral.
TGH Litigation helps students, educators, and public employees understand how constitutional rights and First Amendment protections may apply in educational and governmental settings when disputes over speech, expression, or association arise.