# Bethel School District v. Fraser

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the suspension of a high school student who delivered a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly. The case involved free speech in public schools.
On April 26, 1983, student Matthew Fraser was suspended from Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington after he gave a speech including sexual innuendo while nominating a classmate for a student council position at a school assembly. Believing his speech to be inappropriate and vulgar, the school's administration suspended Fraser for three days and barred him from speaking at graduation. After unsuccessfully appealing his punishment through the school's grievance procedures, Fraser filed a lawsuit against the school board, claiming the suspension violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The United States District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals both sided with Fraser. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, a 7–2 majority held that his suspension did not violate the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger found that schools have the right to suppress student speech that is considered lewd or indecent, even if not obscene, in the interest of preserving a safe educational environment.

## Background
### Prior case law

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court held that speech made by students in public schools is protected by the First Amendment unless the speech causes a "substantial disruption" to the learning environment.

### Facts of the case

On April 26, 1983, an assembly was held at Bethel High School in Spanaway, Washington for student council elections to take place. Students were required to either attend the assembly or report to study hall. At the assembly, Matthew Fraser, a 17-year-old senior, gave a speech nominating a classmate for student council vice president. To an audience of about 600 students and teachers, Fraser delivered the following speech:
   I know a man who is firm – he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm – but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts – he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally – he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end – even the climax, for each and every one of you. So vote for Jeff for A. S. B. vice-president – he'll never come between you and the best our high school can be.
It took Fraser about one minute to deliver the speech. As he delivered it, several students in the audience "hooted and yelled" while others appeared "bewildered and embarrassed". Fraser's candidate, Jeff Kuhlman, ultimately won the election with 90 percent of the vote.
While the speech was not outwardly obscene, Fraser described Kuhlman "through the use of sexual metaphor and double entendre", which many observers found offensive. Prior to the assembly, two of Fraser's teachers warned him that the speech was inappropriate and that he "probably should not deliver it" because doing so could have "severe consequences", though they did not suggest that delivering it would violate school rules. The morning after the assembly, Fraser was called to the office, where the Assistant Principal informed him that his speech violated a school rule against "disruptive conduct", which prohibited the use of "obscene, profane language or gestures". Fraser admitted to using sexual innuendo in his speech deliberately and defended it as necessary to reach his core audience.
Fraser was suspended for three days and his name was removed from the pool of eligible graduation speakers. Fraser appealed the decision through the school district's grievance procedures and was still found to be in violation of the "disruptive conduct" rule, though he was allowed to return to school after serving only two days of his three-day suspension. Despite his ban from speaking at graduation, Fraser was selected as a graduation speaker by a write-in vote which placed him second overall among the top three finishers, although Bethel High School administrators refused to accept the write-in vote as a valid result, and continued to deny Fraser the opportunity to speak at graduation. Fraser ultimately spoke at graduation following a District Court ruling.
With approval from his parents and help from American Civil Liberties Union cooperating attorney Jeff Haley, Fraser filed a lawsuit against the school authorities claiming a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.

### Lower court proceedings

United States District Court judge Jack Edward Tanner ruled in his favor.
The school district then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which again ruled in Fraser's favor. The school district asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 8, 1985.

## Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a 7–2 vote to reinstate the suspension, saying that the school district's policy did not violate the First Amendment. Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered the Court's opinion, in what ended up along with the Gramm–Rudman decision (Bowsher v. Synar) to be the final case of the Burger Court era. Justice William J. Brennan delivered a concurring opinion, while Justice Harry Blackmun concurred in the majority without authoring an opinion. Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens dissented.
Though the Court distinguished its 1969 decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which upheld the right of students to express themselves where their words (or in that case, the wearing of a protest armband) are non-disruptive and could not be seen as connected with the school, Fraser limits the scope of that ruling, by prohibiting certain styles of expression that are sexually vulgar.
Matthew Fraser, then a student at the University of California, Berkeley, said of the ruling: "I'm not really surprised. The court has become mindlessly conservative lately. The rationale used in this case is nothing less than idiotic."