The election is over. However, the post-mortem debate continues. People ostensibly are having well-reasoned, principled, conversations of what the results of the election mean, the direction of the country, and what next steps should be taken. Some people are also celebrating a victory, while other people are commiserating in loss. What happens when those people happen to be students in school?  

As established in Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969), students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The court determined in order to justify the suppression of speech, school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. A fear of disruption was not enough. So long as the speech in question is not conveyed in an obscene, profane, lewd or vulgar manner, (see Bethel Sch. Dist. v Fraser, 478 US 675) or patently in opposition to the educational mission of the school through promotion of illegal activities (see Morse v Frederick, 551 US 393), grounds for banning first amendment messaging is very limited. 

In short, students have the right and ability to discuss, both in and outside of class, the current political landscape, and even show support or protest, so long as their actions do not materially or substantially interfere with the operations of the school. This, of course, is a very fact specific issue. For example, two students vigorously debating over the election in a high school government class with a teacher moderating, is a different situation than two students loudly hurling invective insults at each other based on perceived political leanings in the middle of an algebra lesson.  

As your district navigates, these and other legal matters, please know that the MASB legal department is here to serve you. If you have any question or concerns, please contact us.