UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-1998 Symbolic student speech since Tinker George W Flanders University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Flanders, George W, "Symbolic student speech since Tinker" (1998). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 3052. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/k3ku-gpmm This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in Qrpewriter 6ce, vdiile others may be from any ^ e of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction Is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and impropo' alignment can adversely affect reproductioiL In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletioiL Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, b^inning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infoimation Conqary 300 North Zed} Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SYMBOLIC STUDENT SPEECH SINCE TINKER by George W. Flanders Bachelor of Arts University of Dubuque 1954 Master of Education University of Nevada, Las Vegas 1994 A dissertation prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership College of Education University of Nevada, Las Vegas December, 1998 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 9923730 C o p y r ig h t 1999 b y Flanders, George W. All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9923730 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © George W. Flanders All Rights Reserved Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D issertation Approval UNIV The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas Wovemhe-r S, .19 9R The Dissertation prepared by George W. Flanders Entitled Symbolic Student Speech Since Tinker is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership Examimtion Committee Chair / Dean of the Graduate Colleie y-./ / // ExamhitUion Committee M e m b e fy Examiihition Committee Member te College Ft resentative U Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Symbolic Student Speech Since Tinker by George W. Flanders Dr. Gerald C. &)ps, Ebcamining Committee Chair Professor of Educational Leadership University of Nevada, Las Vegas When students exercise their First Amendment r i^ t of firee speech, it can sometimes conflict with the obligation of public school officials to m aintain a safe and orderly environment on their campuses. Three Supreme Court decisions—Tinker v. Des Moines. 393 U.S. 503 (1969), Bethel v. Fraser. 478 U.S. 675 (1986), and Hazelwood v Kiihlmmar 484 U.S. 260 (1988)—have addressed the most common types of student expression. Hazelwood dealt with school-sponsored printed material and Fraser established ground rules to handle public address by students. In both instances, the Supreme Court endorsed the school’s authority to regulate the amount of “free speech” that can be exercised by students in the public schools. Only Tinker, the earliest of the three decisions and heavily quoted from in the other two, spoke to the issue of symbolic speech: that which is neither iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. spoken aloud nor published for distribution. Symbolic speech is the type most frequently encountered in schools, given the Court’s endorsement of reasonable prior restraint of the printed word and schools’ careful monitoring of students’ public speaking. Over the years, student speech cases have found judges seeking to resolve issues which were not exact fits for these landmarks by quoting “sound bites” from one or more of them. This has resulted in rulings w hich often can raise more questions than they answer. This study tain ted symbolic student expression: that which is neither spoken aloud nor published. In reviewing case law dealing with this type of speech, the study determinedhow the various federal courts have interpreted the Tinker landmark over the past three decades. The study investigated possible patterns in the courts’ rulings which could provide additional guidance for today’s harried school administrators. IV Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... ni ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................................................................... viü C H A PT E R l INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1 Purpose o f th e S tu d y ...................................................................................... 7 Research Questions ........................................................................................ 7 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 8 R a tio n a le ..........................................................................................................9 Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................... 10 Significance of the Study ............................................................................ 11 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LAW AND LITERATURE......................................... 12 The Vietnam E ra ...........................................................................................13 The Tinker Armbands ..................................................................... 14 Burnside’s Voter Registration B uttons .........................................21 Blackwell Case Involved Insubordinate Students ........................22 Chandler’s Scab Buttons ..............................................................................24 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................ 40 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ..................................................................... 43 Armbands and Berets .................................................................................. 46 Einhom v. Mans ..............................................................................45 Hernandez v. School District Number O ne ...................................47 Aguirre v. Tahoka Independent School D istrict .......................... 49 Butts V. Dallas Independent School D istrict .................................50 James V. Board of Education .......................................................... 51 Wise V. Sauers .................................................................................... 52 The National Emblem .................................................................................. 54 Frain v. Baron .................................................................................. 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Goetz V . A n s e ll .........................................................................................................................56 Symbols of the ConfederaQT ........................................................................ 56 A ugustus V . School