### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Octob er 1 2, 2004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1301 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 80 43 8- CV-DTKH SH E L D AH A RR IS BA

NN O N , a s pare nt an d n atur al gu ard ia n o f he r da ug ht ers , Sh ar ahH ar

ri s and B ri ttn i H ar

ri s, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us SCH OO L D IST RICT OF PA LM BE ACH COU NT Y, a body

corporate, ED HA RRIS , indiv iduallyand in his capacity as principal of Bo ca RatonCo m

m uni ty H ighS ch ool , JO E S A BI A , ind ivi dua lly and i n hi s c ap ac ity as G ir l’ s B as ke tba ll Co ac h of Bo ca Raton Co m m uni ty H ighS ch ool , D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

_ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 12, 200 4)Honora ble Fr ank J. Magill, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. 2 Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and M A G IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant S he lda

H ar ri s B annon, on b eh al f of

he r daught er

S harah H ar

ri s, al le ge d t ha t Ap pe ll ees , Sch oo l Di st ric t o f Pal m Beac h C ou nt y

an d P rin ci pa l Ed H ar ri s, vio la te d S harah’ s F ir st A m en dm en t r igh ts b y c om pe lli ng h er

to re m ove re lig iou s w or ds and s ym

bol s f ro m m ur al s pa int ed

f or asc hool be au tif

ic at ion pr oj ec t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or Appe lle es be ca

use it concluded (1) Appellees never c reate d a public forum , ( 2) the m urals we re sc hool -s pons or ed

spe ec h, and, ( 3) Appe lle es ’ r es pons e w as r ea sona bly r el at ed to l e g i t i ma t e p e d a g o g i c a l o b j e c t i v e s . We a f

f i rm. I. BACKGROUND T his li tig at ionc onc er

ns a sc hool be au tif

ic at ionpr oj ec t at a

r el igi ousl y div er se pub lic sc hool . Whil e the sc hool w as und er goi ng l ong- te rm r em ode lin g, stu de nts w er e pr ev en te d f ro m w al kin g in to c onstru ct ionare as by doz en s of

larg e ply w ood pane ls i n in te ri or

and e xte ri or

ha llw ay s. T he se pane ls w er e ugl y , and w oul d r em ai n apart

of the sc hool f

or up t o f our y ears . T o be au tif

y the sc hool , stu de nts w er e inv ite d to pa int m ur al s onthe pane ls. T he sc hool did notWe refe r to these thre e mura ls collectively as “Shar ah’s mura ls” or “the murals.” 1 3 spe ci fi ca lly

pr ohi bit stu de nts f

ro m e xpr es sin g r el igi ous vie w s. T he sc hool did , how ev er , ins tr

uc t st ude nts that the ir

artw ork c oul d no t be pr of an e or of fe nsi ve to any one. Sharah, a high schoo l senior and m em ber of the Fe llowship of Christian A thl et es ( FC A ), de ci de d to part ic ipate in thi s be au tif ic at ionpr oj ec t. A lth ough Sh ar ahand h er

F CAc oll ea gue s pl anne d to use ve rb al m es sa ge s and r el igi ous sym bols, they never gave P rincipal Harris or Cathy Roberts (the teac her supe rv is in g t he be au ti fic at io n p ro ject) an y no ti fic at io n o r ad va nc e warn in g. No oth er stu de nt m

ur al s ha d ve rb al m es sa ge s. O n aS at ur day a ft er noon , S harah and oth er F CAstu de nts pa int ed

se ve ra l m

ur al s w ithvari ous re lig iou s m es sa ge s and sym bol s. T hr ee of the se m ur al s w er e m ost

not ab le . S harah’ s f

ir st m ur al w as ne xt t o the sc hool ’ s m ai n of

fi ce , ha d ac ru ci fi x inthe ba ck gr ound , and p ar ap hr as ed Jo hn 3:16 as “ Beca

use He Ì ed, H e G ave.” Sharah’ s second m ural w as only

a fe w p an e l s d o w n f

r o m th e o f

f i c e an dr e a d , “J e s u s h a s t i me f o r yo u ; d o yo uh a v e t i me fo r H im ?” S harah’ s F CAc oll ea gue s pa int ed athi rd m ur al , loc at ed

in a m ai n ha llw ay , that r ea d, “ G od L ove s Y ou. Wha t P ar t of T hou Sh al t N ot D idn ’ t Y ou Und ers ta nd ? God .” 14

T he f oll ow ing Mo nday

m or nin g, P ri nc ipa l H ar

ri s f ound ac om m oti on o n cam pus near Sharah’ s m

urals invol ving vocal student s and teachers. L ater that day , the m

ur al s r ec ei ve d m ed iaa tte nti on i n th e fo rm of pho ne c al ls, r ep orte rs f

ro m thr ee te le vis ionstatio ns, and n ew spa pe r re porte rs . T his pub lic ity and c ontro ve rs y dis tr ac te d th e atte nti on o f stu de nts , te ac he rs , and a dm ini str at or s f ro m sc hool w ork, te ac hin g, and a dm ini str at ive dut ie s. A s P ri nc ipa l H ar ri s e xpl ai ne d inhis de posi tio n, the e xpr es sio n inS harah’ s m ur al s in te rf

er ed w iththe ope ratio n of

the sc hool , [b ] ec au se if

it take s any

ti m e aw ay

f ro m the pr oduc tiv ity

of the sc hool in i tse lf and the le ngth of

ti m e that I ha d to spe nd o n th is, takin g th e p r i n c i p a l ’s t i me , th e a s s i s t an tp r i n c i p a l ’s t i me , th e s tu d e n t ’s t i me aw ay [fr om ] the m ain focus of the school, . . . [so] the school was fo cu sin g m or e on the pane ls, ove ra ll, m or e so than [ it] w as f oc usi ng on the reason we w ere here. Pr inc ipa l H ar

ri s di d no t e xpe l, sus pe nd, or oth er w ise pun ishS harah f

or pa int ing he r m

ur al s. I nst ea d, P ri nc ipa l H ar ri s sp oke about

the m ur al s w ithMs . Ro be rt s. S hortly

the re af te r, Ms . Ro be rt s in vit ed

S harah to ste p ou tsi de of c la ss t o spe ak pr ivate ly . D ur ing thi s di sc uss ion , Ms . Ro be rt s e xpl ai ne d th at a lth ough Sh ar ahw oul d ne ed

to pa int ove r the ove rt

r el igi ous w or ds and s ec tari ansy m bol s on a ll thr ee m

ur al s, suc h a s “ Je sus , ” “ G od, ” an d th e cr uc if ix, he r oth er

im ag es and m es sa ge s c oul d r em ai n. D ur ing he r de posi tio n, S harah c onc ed ed thi s se le ct iveAp pe lla nt a lle g e d c la ims on

be ha lf of bo th h e r d a

ughte rs , Sh ara

h a nd B ri ttn i. O n b e ha lf 2 of B rittni, Appellant alleg ed a T itle IX violation ag ainst Br ittni’s basketball coac h. On beha lf of S h ar ah , Ap p el l an tal l ege d v i o l at i o n s o f t h e F i rs tAm en dm en t , as ap p l i cab l e t o th e s t at es th ro u gh the Four teenth Amendme nt of the U.S. Constitution, via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Florida Con sti tut ion ’s fr e e e xer c ise , f re e sp e e c h, and

e qu a l pr ote c tio n c la

us e s. Ap pe lla

nt v olu nta ri ly dismiss ed her

Title IX claims on beha lf of B rittni, and does not argue on appe al that Appellee s acte d in violation of the Florida Constitution. According ly , our re view is limit ed to the district c ourt ’s de nia l of

Ap pe lla nt’ s F ir st Ame ndme nt c la ims . Hazelwood

involved a princ ipal’s dec ision to delete two article s from a high school 3 ne ws pa pe r, wh ic h w a s wri tte n a

nd e dit e d b y a jou rn a lis m c la ss. 48 4 U .S. at 26 2- 64 . O ne art ic le 5 de le tio n w as an a tte m

pt t o ke ep he r ha

ppy . S harah r ep ai nte d he r m ur al s and the FCAm urals after

school. Notably , S harah w as not the onl y student whose m

ural w as e dit ed . P ri nc ipa l H ar ri s di re ct ed

the r em ova l of

pr of an ity , gang s ym

bol s, and sa tanic im ag es f

ro m stu de nts ’ m

ur al s. Appe llant f

ile d su it, but

the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or 2 Appe lle es on the F ir st A m en dm en t c la im s be ca use it c onc lud ed

Appe lle es did

not cr eate apub lic f

or um . I nst ea d, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ea sone d th e be au tif ic at ion pr oj ec t f el l “ square ly

in the c at eg or

y of sc hool spo nsor ed

spe ec h. ” Appl y ing Hazelwood Schoo l District v. Kuhlmeier , 484 U . S. 260 ( 1988 ), w hic h go ve rn s sc hool -s pons or ed

e xpr es sio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld P ri nc ipa l H ar ri s’ s r es tr ic tio ns we re “ reasonably

relate d to [the] legitim ate pedagogical goal[s of]

. . . . dis as soc ia tin g [ the sc hool ] f ro m r el igi ous or ganiz at ion s and the e ndor se m en t of r el igi ous vie w s . . . . [ an d] a voi din g di sr upt ion[ to the le ar

nin g e nvi ro nm en t] fr om r el igi ous de ba te on the w al ls o f the sc hool . ” Appe llant a ppe al ed . 3descr ibed seve ral students’ e x perie nces w ith preg nancy , while the other discussed the impac t of divorce on students at the school. Id . The princ ipal believed the article s were inappropriate for publication beca

use (1) despite the use of

pseudony

ms, the pregnant g irls might be identifia ble, (2) r efe renc es to sexual activity and birth control we re ina ppropriate for young er students, a nd (3) the divorce story

did not give the interviewe d students’ pare nts an opportunity to respond or consent to publication. Id . The Hazelwood Court up he ld t he re str ic tio ns in t

he fa c e of a F ir st Amendment cha lleng e. It concluded that the article s were school-sponsore d speec h and that the restric tions were r easona

bly related to leg itimate pedag og ical conc erns. Id . at 273-76.

6 II. DISCUSS ION Appe llant f

ir st c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed be ca use it did not sub j ec t the sc hool ’ s a ct ionto the F ir st A m en dm en t st an dard s a ppl ic ab le in de sig na te d or lim ited pub lic fora. A lternatively , e ven if the district court properly concluded Appellees did not create a publi c forum , Appellant cont ends the dis trict court im pr ope rl y appl ie d H

aze lw ood , 484 U. S. at 273 (holdi ng schoo ls m ay restrict sc hool -s pons or ed

e xpr es sio n so lon g a s th e re str ic tio n is “ re as ona bly r el at ed to le git im at e pe da gogi ca l c onc er ns” ). Appe llant m ai nta ins H aze lw ood ’ s st an dard s do n ot a ppl y w he n ( 1) the e xpr es sio n oc curs dur ing anon curr ic ular ac tiv ity , or ( 2) the school’s ce nsorshi p of expression am ount s to viewpoint d iscrim ination . In lie u of appl y ing H

aze lw ood , ther efore, Appellant suggests the district court instead shou ld have applied th e rigorous standard of Ti nk er v . D es M oin es I nde pe nde nt Comm unity Scho ol District , 393 U . S. 503 , 511 ( 1969 ) (h old ing sc hool s m ust tolerate pure student expression unless censorsh ip is “ necessary to avoid m aterial and subs tantial interfere nce w ith schoo lwork or discipline”).7

W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. H off m an v . A lli ed

Co rp. , 912 F . 2d 1 379, 138 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) . F or the r ea sons th a tf o l l o w , w e a f

f i rm. A. P ubl ic F

orum A nal

ys is Fo r Fi rs t A m en dm en t purp ose s, the re are thr ee kin ds o f gove rn m en t pr ope rty : ( 1) tr ad iti ona l pu bli c fo ra , ( 2) de sig na te d publi c fo ra , and ( 3) nonpubl ic fo ra. Pe rry Educ. Ass’n v . P erry Local E ducato rs’ Ass’n , 460 U . S. 37, 45–46 (1983). In this instance, beca use the m ural proj ect w as neither a tr adition al nor a d e s i g n a t e dp ub l i c f

o r u m, i tw a s ak i n do f

n o np ub l i c f

o r u m. T he m ur al pr oj ec t w as not

atr ad iti ona l pu

bli c fo rum . “ [P ] ubl ic sc hool s do not pos se ss a ll of

the a ttr ibu te s of

str ee ts, park s, and o the r tr ad iti ona l pu bli c f o r u ms th a tt i me o u to f

mi n d , h a v e b e e n u s e df

o r p u r p o s e s o f a s s e mb l y, com m unicating thoug hts between citizens, and discuss ing pu blic questio ns.” H aze lw ood , 484 U. S. at 267 (internal quotatio n m arks and citations om itted). N ei the r w as the m

ur al pr oj ec t a

de sig na te d publi c fo rum . “ T he gov er nm en t doe s no t c re at e a publ ic f or um by ina ct ionor

by pe rm itt ing li m ite d di sc our se , but onl y byinten tio nal lyope nin g a n ontradi tio nal for um for

pub lic dis co urs e .” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d; cit at io ns an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Ind eed , a sc hool c re at es ade sig na te d publi c fo rum onl y w he n “ sc hool auth or iti es have by8

policy or practice opened tho se fac ilities for indis crim inate use by the general publ ic, or by

som e segm ent of the public, such as student organizations.” Id . (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted). W hen a school retains editorial co nt ro l o ve r a fo ru m , itha s n ot crea te d ade si gn at edpu bl ic forum . Se e id. at 268 (c onc lud ing that a

sc hool ne w spa

pe r w as not

apub lic f

or um be ca use sc hool au tho ri tie s r et ai ne d ul tim at e ed ito ri al c ontro l ov er pr oduc tio n, pub lic at ion , and content). Far fr om “ in te nt io na ll y ” o pe ni ng a pu bl ic forum for“ in di sc riminat e u se ,” Appe lle es m er el y

sol ic ite d st

ude nts to part ic ipate in a sc hool be au tif ic at ion pr oj ec t. N o r ec or d e vid en ce de m onstrate s Appe lle es e vin ce d an int en tio n , “by pol ic y or pr ac tic e, ” to d es ign at e the sc hool be au tif ic at ionpr oj ec t a s apub lic f or um in whic h st

ude nts or any one e lse c oul d f

re el y e xpr es s any

and a ll of

the ir pol iti ca l, religious, or other views. Instead, Appellees alw ay s retained editorial control over the m urals in at least three w ay s. F irst, P rincipal Harris explicitly instructed student s that non e of the m urals could be profane or offe nsive. Sec ond, the m ural pr oj ec t w as sup er

vis ed by Ms . Ro be rt s, af

ac ulty m em be r. F ina lly , a lth ough Principal H arris told student s to express them selves, he never said the m urals we re a fo rum f or e xpr es sin g th ei r pol iti ca l or r el igi ous vie w s. T hus, w e co nc lud e S h ar ah ’s e x p r e s s i o n d i dn o to c c u r i n atr a d i t i o n a l o r

d e s i g n a t e dp ub l i c f

o r u m.9

Fo r the se r ea sons , the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly he ld S harah’ s e xpr es sio n oc curr ed in a nonp ubl ic f

or um . B. Sc holast ic No npub lic F ora G en er al ly , in nonp ubl ic f or a, the gov er

nm en t c anr eg ulate e xpr es sio n so lon g a s it s r eg ulatio ns “ ar e re as ona ble in lig ht o f the pur

pose se rv ed

by the f or um and are viewpoin t neutral.” Co rne liu s v . NAA CP L egal D ef

en se & E duc . F und, Inc. , 473 U . S. 788 , 806 ( 1985 ). I n sc hool se tti ngs, how ev er , the ana ly sis is sli ght ly m or e re fi ne d ba se d onthe ide nti ty of the spe ak er

and the na tur e of

the expr es sio n. W ith in s ch ola sti c nonp ubl ic f or a, the re are f

our c le ar c at eg or ie s of expr es sio n: vulg ar

e xpr es sio n, pur e stu de nt e xpr es sio n, gov er nm en t e xpr es sio n, an d s ch oo l-s po ns or edex pr es si on . V ulg ar e xpr es sio n is stu de nt e xpr es sio n th at is le w d, of

fe nsi ve , or

ind ec en t, an d s ch oo ls m ay

free ly curt ai l i t. Be thel Sch. D ist. No. 403 v. F raser , 478 U. S. 675, 685 ( 1986 ). P ur e stu de nt e xpr es sio n is stu de nt e xpr es sio n th at m er el y happens to occur on the school prem ises, and schools m ust tol erate such expr es sio n un le ss the y

c anr ea sona

bly f or ec as t tha t the e xpr es sio n w ill le ad to

“ subs tantial disrup tion o f or m aterial interf erence with school activities.” Tinker , 393 U . S. a t 51 4. G ove rn m en t e xpr es sio n is e xpr es sio n de liv er ed dir ec tly thr ough the gov er nm en t or ind ir ec tly

thr oughpr ivate int er

m ed iari es , and the gov er

nm en t i s10

free to m ak e su bjec t-matte r-b as edch oi ces . See R ose nbe rge r v . R ec tor & V isi tor s of t he U niv . of V a. , 515 U . S. 819 , 833 ( 1995 ). F ina lly , be tw ee n th e spe ctrum of pur e stu de nt e xpr es sio n and g ove rn m en t e xpr es sio n is the int er m ed ia te c at eg or

y of sc hool -s pons or ed

e xpr es sio n: whe n “ stu de nts , pare nts , and m em be rs of the pub lic m igh t r ea sona

bly pe rc ei ve [ stu de nts ’ e xpr es siv e ac tiv iti es ] to be ar the im pr im at ur of the school,” schools m ay censor student expressio n so lon g as their actions are reas on ab ly relat edto leg it im at e p ed ag og ic al co nc ern s. H aze lw ood , 484 U. S. at 27 1– 73 . 1. Th e Im pri m atu r T

es t an d C urr ic ula r E

xp ressi on The district court concluded Sharah’ s m urals we re school-spons ored expr es sio n, and c onse que ntl y appl ie d H

aze lw ood . App el la nt arg ue s t hi s was erro r. Ci tin g th is C ourt’ s op ini on i n Se arc eyv . H arr is , 888 F. 2d 13 14 (11th Cir. 1989 ), Appe llant c ont en ds H

aze lw ood onl y appl ie s to e xpr es sio n th at oc curs in the context of curricular a ctivities, as opposed to noncurricular activities. In other w or ds, e ve n if

e xpr es sio n is spo nsor ed

by or be ar s th e im

pr im at ur of the sc hool , Appe llant arg ue s H

aze lw ood onl y appl ie s whe n th e expr es sio n oc curs in the co nte xt o f curr ic ular ac tiv iti es . T o c om ple te thi s arg um en t, Appe llant m ai nta ins the be au tif

ic at ionpr oj ec t di d no t oc cur in the c ont ex t of ac ur ri cu lar ac tiv ity because (1) Appellees did n ot require students to participate, (2) students received11

no grade or cre dit for participation, (3) the m urals we re painted on a Saturday ou ts id e o f reg ul ar s ch oo l h ou rs , and(4) stud en ts pa ida sm al l fe e to pa rti ci pa te . As suc h, Appe llant arg ue s Appe lle es ’ pol ic y w as sub j ec t t o th e ri gor ous standard s of Tinker , r ather than the standards of H aze lw ood . W e agre e H

aze lw ood only controls scho ol-spon sored expression th at occurs in the c ont ex t of

ac ur ri cu lar ac tiv ity , but

c onc lud e Sh ar ah ’ s m

ur al s oc curr ed

in such a curricular

context. T hus, the m

urals constitu ted school-sp onso red expression within th e m eaning of H aze lw ood . H aze lw ood c ontro ls a ll expr es sio n th at ( 1) be ar s th e im

pr im at ur of the sc ho ol , and(2) oc cu rs in a cu rri cu la r act iv it y . H aze lw ood , 484 U . S. a t 27 1–73 ; Searcey , 888 F . 2d at 13 19 n . 7. H er e, the re is no que sti on s tud en ts, pare nts , and oth er m em be rs of the pub lic m igh t r ea sona bly be lie ve S harah’ s m

ur al s be ar the im pr im aturof t he sch oo l. The m ur al s ap pe ar i n p ro m in en t l oc at io ns in th e sc ho ol . The f irst m ural is next to the scho ol’ s m ain office, the second m ural also is near that of fi ce , and the thi rd

m ur al appe ar s inam ai n ha llw ay . G ive n th e loc at ionof the se m ur al s, ar ea sona

ble “ obse rv er

w oul d li ke ly

pe rc ei ve that the sc hool ha d a ro le in se tti ng g uid el ine s f or , and u lti m at el y

appr ovi ng, the [ m

ur al s] it a llo w ed to becom e a par

t of the school its elf, which in this case, it did.” F le m ing v . J ef fe rso n County Sch. Dist. R- 1 , 298 F . 3d 9 18, 930 ( 10th C ir . 200 2) . Mo re spe ci fi ca lly , the12

be au tif ic at ionpr oj ec t w as appr ove d ina dvanc e by P ri nc ipa l H ar

ri s, a dve rt ise d by the sc hool , sup er

vis ed by Ms . Ro be rt s, li m ite d to stu de nts and f ac ulty w ho p ai d a fe e to p ar tic ipate , and s ubj ec t t o th e sc hool ’ s e dit or ia l c ontro l. T he r ea l qu es tio n is w he the r Sh ar ah ’ s e xpr es sio n oc curr ed in the c ont ex t of a curr ic ular ac tiv ity . I n arg uin g S harah’ s e xpr es sio n di d no t oc cur in the c ont ex t of a curr icular ac tivity , Appellant un derestim ates how broadly the H aze lw ood Co urt de fi ne d c ur

ri cu lar ac tiv iti es . T o be c onsi de re d c ur ri cu lar, e xpr es siv e activities need not o ccur in a “ traditional classroom setting.” H

aze lw ood , 484 U. S. at 271 . I nst ea d, e xpr es siv e ac tiv iti es are c ur ri cu lar so l ong as the y

are m er el y

( 1)

“ supervised b y

fac ulty m em bers,” and (2) “ designedto im part particular knowledge or skills to stud ent participants and audien ces. ” Id . I n c ontra st t o App el la nt ’s po si ti on , H

aze lw ood ne ve r de fi ne d c ur

ri cu lar ac tiv ity

in te rm s of whether student participation was re quired, earned grades or cr edit, occurr ed du rin g re gu la r sc ho ol ho ur s, o r di d n ot req ui re a fe e. H er e, e ve n th oughS harah di d no t pa int he r m ur al s inatr ad iti ona l c la ssr oom se tti ng, he r expr es sio n st ill oc curr ed in the c ont ex t of

ac ur ri cu lar ac tiv ity . T he first prong is m et because P rincipal Harris and Ms. Roberts we re f aculty m em bers who supervised the beautification p roj ect. L ikewise, the second prong is satisfied be ca use the be au tif

ic at ionpr oj ec t w as de sig ne d to im part part ic ular know le dge13

an d sk ill s to stu de nt p ar

tic ipants and a

udi en ce s; i t a llo w ed

stu de nt p ar

tic ipants to expr es s th em se lve s art ist ic al ly , a llo w ed stu de nt a udi en ce s to appr ec ia te the ir fel lo w stud en ts ’ art work, an d p ro m ot edsch oo l s pi rit , am on g o th er t hi ng s. Appellant’ s argum ents that Sharah’ s expression d id not occur in the context of a curricular activity —because students were not required to participate, they re ce ive d no gr ad e or

c re dit f or part ic ipatio n, the m

ur al s w er e pa int ed

on a Satur day out sid e of

r eg ular sc hool hours , and s tud en ts p ai d asm al l f ee to participate—sim

ply have no toehol d in the relevant legal doctrines. T hey ignore how broadly

the Suprem e Court has defined school curricula for H aze lw ood ’s purpos es. As such, Sharah’ s expression o ccurre d in the context of a c urricular a c t i v i ty. Sh ar ah ’ s e xpr es sio n bo re the im pr im at ur of the sc hool and o cc ur

re d inthe co nte xt o f a curr ic ular ac tiv ity , so Appe lle es c anc en sor he r expr es sio n su

bj ec t t o the li m itatio ns announc ed in H aze lw ood . 2. V ie wp oin t or

Co nte nt R es tri ct ion ? Appe llant m ai nta ins that, a lth ough H aze lw ood perm its sub

j ect-m atter-base d re str ic tio ns o n sc hool -s pons or ed stu de nt e xpr es sio n, it

doe s no t pe rm it vie wpoi ntba se d di sc ri m inatio n. W e ag re e w ithAppe llant tha t H aze lw ood do es no t al lo w a sc ho ol to cen so r sc ho ol -s po ns or edsp eech ba se d o n v ie wpo in t. See Searcey , 888In Searce y , we a ddresse d whether Hazelwood permitted viewpoint-ba sed discrimination 4 in a ca se brought by

a nonstudent g roup, the Atlanta Peace Alliance ( APA), that wa nted to speak at a sc hool’s car eer

day . 888 F.2d at 1315. The school did not let the APA speak. Id. We h e ld the school could not exclude the APA fr om its caree r day , and stated that “[w] ithout more e xplic it d ir e c tio n, we wi ll c ontin ue to r e qu ir e sc ho ol o ff

ic ia ls t o ma

ke de c isi on s r e latin gto speec h which ar e viewpoint neutr al.” Id. at 1325. Our c onclusion in Searce ythat Hazelwood does not permit viewpoint discrimination encompa sses the sort of sc hool-sponsored spe ech that was at issue in Hazelwood , which wa s student speec h in a school-sponsore d newspa per. Hazelwood , 484 U.S. at 273. 14 F. 2d at 13 25 ( “ [a ] lth ough H aze lw ood pr ovi de s r ea sons f

or a llo w ing asc hool of fi ci al to dis cr im inate ba se d on co nte nt , w e do n ot b el ie ve it of fe rs any j ustification for allowing educators to dis crim inate based on viewpoint .” ) (e m pha sis in or igi na l) . I n th is c as e, how ev er , the sc hool did not e nga ge in 4 vie wpoi nt d isc ri m inatio n, but r athe r ce nsor ed

the m ur al s onthe ba sis of

the ir co nte nt. W e re

j ec t the c ont en tio n th at Rosenberger and Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union FreeSchool District , 508 U . S. 384 ( 1993 ), r equir e us t o vi ewthe sc hool ’ s a ct ion s he re a s af orm of im pe rm iss ibl e vie wpoi nt d isc ri m inatio n. T he sc hool ’ s r ef

usa l t o a llo wS harah, or

any one e lse , to m ak e expli ci tly r el igi ous state m en ts i n m

ur al s th at li te ra lly be cam e part

of the sc hool ’ s w al ls i s un lik e the re str ic tio ns at i ssu e in the se c as es . Bo th d ec isi ons inv olv ed

sc hool s th at

pr ev en te d sp eake rs f

ro m part ic ipatin g in a school-created f

orum because of the speaker s’ religious vi ewpoin ts. I n Lamb's C hapel , asc hool board

ha d apol ic y

of a llo w ing gr oups to use sc hool15

property after -hours for a var iety

of social, civic, and recre ational uses. 508 U. S. at 386 . R eg ulatio ns a dopt ed by the board

r equir ed that the “ sc hool pr em ise s sh al l not be usedby

any group for religious p urposes.” Id . a t 38 7. B as ed on this regulation, the board ref

used a church group’s r equest to screen a f ilm series pr es en tin g apsy ch olo gis t’ s “ vie w s onthe und er m ini ng i nf

lue nc es of

the m ed ia that c oul d on ly

be c ount er

ba lanc ed by r et ur nin g to tr ad iti ona l, Ch ri sti anf am ily values inst illed at an ear ly stage.” Id . at 388-89 . The S uprem e Court found that the board ’ s de ci sio n to de ny a cc es s to the gr oup co nst itu te d vi ew poi nt dis cr im inatio n, sin ce the gr oup w as pr ev en te d f ro m dis cu ssi ng the oth er

w ise p er m i s s i b l e t o p i cs o f c h i l dre ar i n g an dfa m i l y v al u es b ec au s e o f t h e g ro up ’s rel ig io us pe rs pe ct iv e. Id . at 3 93 -9 4. I n Rosenberger , students at the University of V irginia sou ght and were denied fundi ng for a "m agazine of philosop hical and religious exp ression" that ad dr es se d to pic s, suc h a s r ac ism , of da ily im portanc e to univ er sity

stu de nts . 515 U . S. a t 82 5- 26. B ec au se oth er stu de nt p ubl ic at ion s, w ith out ar el igi ous perspective, w ere allowed to address these approved subjects, the Court held that th e reg ul at io n a m ou nt edto vi ewp oi nt di sc riminat io n. Id . a t8 3 1 - 3 2 . I mp o rt an t l y, the R ose nbe rge r Court explained that th e U niversity did no t restrict the subj ect m at te r of rel ig io n. Id . a t 83 1. ( “ By the ve ry te rm s of the [ U niv er sity ’ s]16

p r o h i b i t i o n , th e Un i v e r s i ty does not exclude religion as a subject matter but se le ct s f or dis favor ed

tr eatm en t those stu de nt j our na lis tic e ff

orts w ithr el igi ous ed it or ia l v ie wpo in ts .”) (em ph as is ad de d) . Ba se d onthe above , w e fi nd b othc as es r ea dil y dis tin gui sha

ble f ro m the facts of the c urrent case. W e note initiallythat neither Lamb’s Chapel nor Rosenberger

inv olv ed sc hool -s pons or ed

spe ec h th at

c oul d be a ttr ibu te d to the sc ho ol . Lamb’s Chapel , 508 U . S. a t 39 5 ( obse rv ing that “ [t ] he sho w ing of thi s film series w ouldnot have been during school ho urs” and “ would not h ave been spon sored by

the school”) ; Rosenberger , 515 U . S. a t 84 1 ( “ Inthi s c as e, ‘ the gove rn m en t ha s no t f

ost er ed or e nc our ag ed ’ any

m ist ak enim

pr es sio n th at

the stu de nt n ew spa

pe rs spe ak

f or the U niv er sity . T he U niv er sity ha s take n pa ins to disasso ciate itself f

rom the private speech involv ed in this case.”) (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). De spite the absence of school-spo nsored spe ec h inthe se c as es , Appe llant w oul d have us a dopt ar ea din g of

the se de ci sio ns that w oul d re qui re asc hool , und er the c ir cum stanc es pr es en te d he re , to al low student s to use the walls of a public school to proselytize. In our view , neither ca se m an da te s su char es ult . U nli ke the spe ec h c en sor ed in La m b’ s C hape l an d Rosenberger , S harah w as not di scussin g secular topics from a re ligio us perspective. S harah’ s first m uralAs the Rosenberge r Court expl ained, " [t ]he nece ssities of confininga for um to the 5 limit ed and le g itimate purposes for which it was c reated may justify the State in rese rvingit for . . . the discussion of ce rtain topics." 515 U.S. at 829. This statement presuppose s the leg itimacy of conte nt-based r egulations in a limi ted public forum. 17 (w hich includ ed an im age of a crucifix and the w ords “ Beca use He Ì ed , He G av e. ”, ba se d on Jo hn 3:1 6) r ef er re d to Ch ri st’ s c ru ci fi xio n. S harah’ s se co nd m ur al ( “ Je sus ha s ti m e fo r y ou; do y ou h av e tim e fo r H im ?”) w as ac al l f or stu de nts to de ve lop ape rs ona l r el at ion shi p w ithCh ri st. T he la st m ur al by Sh ar ah ’ s c oll ea gue s ( “ G od L ove s y ou. W ha t P ar t of T hou Sh al t N ot D idn ’ t Y ou U nde rs tand? G od. ”) pur

porte d to be am es sa ge f

ro m G od. T he se are obv iou sly inherently

religious m essages, which cannot be recast as the discussion of secular top ic s f ro m ar el igi ous pe rs pe ct ive . S inc e the sc hool did not pe rm it any

stu de nt i n the context of a curricular activity to com m unicate such m essages, it re stricted sp eech on th e b as is of c on te nt , no t v ie wpo in t. There fo re, Lamb’s Chapel and 5 Rosenberger

do n ot b ar

the sc hool ’ s no n- dis cr im inator y r es pons e to the co ntr ove rs y

ge ne rate d by

S harah’ s m

ur al s. A s e xpl ai ne d e ar lie r, asc hool ’ s c ont en t- ba se d c en sor shi p of sc hool spon sored studen t expression su rvives reviewunder H aze lw ood if it is re as ona

bly related to legitim ate pedagogical concerns. 484 U.S . at 273. He re, the district co urt c or re ct ly he ld tha t Appe lle es ha d ale git im at e pe da gogi ca l c onc er n in18

av o i d i n g th e d i s ru p t i o n t o th e s ch o o l ’s l ea rn i n g en v i ro n m en tca u s edb y Sh ar ah ’s m ur al s. F le m ing , 298 F . 3d at 93 4. Appe lle es ’ pol ic y in pr ohi bit ing r el igi ous expression o n its walls wa s reasonably relate d to thi s legitim ate pedagogical co nc ern be cau se iten de d t he di srup ti on . Se e id. III. CONCLUSION For the fore goin g reasons, w e conclude Sharah’ s m urals we re school-sp onso red expression in a non publ ic forum subject to r estriction und er H aze lw ood be ca use the y oc curr ed in the c ont ex t of

ac ur ri cu lar ac tiv ity , and stu de nts , pare nts , and m em be rs of the pub lic m igh t r ea sona bly be lie ve the m

to b ea r t h e i m

p ri m at u r o f t h e s ch o o l . We h o l dAp p el l ee s ’ ce n s o rs h i p o f S h ar ah ’s school-sp onso red m

urals wa s a rea sonable cont ent-based restriction that was ratio na lly r el at ed to the le git im at e pe da gogi ca l c onc er n of a voi din g th e re lig iou s co nt ro ve rs y

an d d eb at e g en erat edby Shara h’s m ur al s. AFFIR MED.19

BL A CK , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , spe ci al ly

c onc ur ri ng: I j oin th e re sult reached by the m aj ority

decision. I write separately because I do not believe R ose nbe rge r v . R ec tor & V isi tor s of theU niv er sit y of V irg ini a , 515 U . S. 819 , 115 S . Ct . 251 0 ( 1995 ) an d Lamb's C hapel v. Ce nter Moriches Union Free School

District , 508 U . S. 384 . , 113 S . Ct . 214 1 ( 1993 ) ar e as r ea dil y distin guish able from

the present case a s the m aj ority . I think these cases com pel us t o c onc lud e that this w as an in stanc e of vie wpoi nt- ba se d di sc ri m inatio n, not content-based dis crim ination . A f indin g of viewpoint dis crim ination , how ever, does not change the result in this case because Hazelwood Schoo l District v. Kuhlmeier , 484 U. S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 562 (198 8), a llows for viewpoin t-based dis cr im inatio n a ga ins t sc hool -s pons or ed stu de nt e xpr es sio n. In H aze lw ood , the S upr em e Co urt a ddr es se d th e Fi rs t A m en dm en t im plications of a high school principal’ s excision o f tw o pages worth of articles fr om ahig h sc hool ne w spa

pe r. I n th at

c as e, ahig h sc hool j our

na lis m c la ss wro te an d e dit ed

asc hool ne w spa

pe r ca lle d Spe ctrum . H

aze lw ood , 484 U . S. a t 26 2, 108 S. Ct. at 565. In one issue of the paper, two ar ticles we re scheduled to appear di sc us si ng stud en t p reg na nc y an d t he im

pa ctof d iv or ce o n s tu de nt s. Id . a t 26 3, 108 S. Ct. at 565–6 6. T he principal objecte d to the pu blication o f the articles be cau se he be li ev ed , int er ali a , that the m aterial w as not sui table for y oung er20

st ud en ts . Id

. at 263, 108 S. C t. at 566. Ac cordingly , the principal cut the entire two pa ge s o n wh ic h t he se art ic le s ap pe ared . Id . a t 26 3–64 , 108 S . Ct . a t 56 6. T he S upr em e Co urt he ld the sc hool w as not r equir ed to pr om ote af fi rm at ive ly

thi s part ic ular sc hool -s pons or ed stu de nt e xpr es sio n. I t e xpl ai ne d th e sc hool ’ s de ci sio n w as r ea sona bly r el at ed to the le git im at e pe da gogi ca l c onc er n, am ong oth er

thi ngs, of

pr ev en tin g th e dis tr ibu tio n of “ fr an k ta lk” about

gir ls’

“ se xua l hi sto ri es and the ir use or nonuse of

bir th c ontro l. . . . in a sc hool -s pons or ed

pub lic at iondis tr ibu te d to 14- y ear- old f re shm enand p re sum ab ly taken hom e to be rea d by students ’ even y oung er brothers and sisters.” Id . at 274– 75, 108 S . Ct . a t 57 2. I n r ea ch ing thi s c onc lus ion , how ev er , unl ike the ap pr oa chof

ty pic al nonpubl ic f

or um c as es suc h a s Co rne liu s v . NAA CP L egal De fense & Education Fund, Inc. , 473 U . S. 788 , 105 S . Ct . 343 9 ( 1985 ), the Su pr em e Co urt di d no t c lari fy w he the r sc hool s c oul d m ak e thi s de ci sio n so le ly on the ba sis of

the stu de nt e xpr es sio n’ s su bj ec t m atte r, or

a lso on the ba sis of

the stu de nt e xpr es sio n’ s vi ew poi nt. In Se arc eyv . H

arr is , 888 F. 2d 13 14 (11th Cir. 1989 ), we exam ined whether H aze lw ood pe rm itt ed

vie wpoi nt- ba se d di sc ri m inatio n inthe c ont ex t of sc hool spon sor ed

non -s tud en t e xpr es sio n. T he re , the sc hool r ef use d to le t a

non stu de nt gr ou p s pe akat t he sch oo l’s ca reerda y . Id . at1 3 1 5 . We c o n cl u d edth e s ch o o l ’s21

actions didnot run afoul of H aze lw ood an d st at ed

that “ [w ] ith out

m or e expli ci t dir ec tio n, w e w ill c ont inu e to r equir e sc hool of fi ci al s to m ak e de ci sio ns r el at ing to speech which ar e viewpoint neutral.” Id . a t 13 25. Appe llant, the re fo re , c ont en ds Searceydic ta te s th at H aze lw ood proscribes cen so rs hi p o f sc ho ol -s po ns or edstud en t ex pr es si on on th e b as is of v ie wpo in t. I di sa gr ee. On t he co nt rary, Searceydoe s no t c ontro l the ins tant s itu at ionbe ca use it did not inv olv e sc hool -s pons or ed stu de nt ex pr es si on . Ins te ad , Searceyinv olv ed a non- stu de nt o uts ide gr oup that w an te d to spe ak a t a sc hool f unc tio n. A s su ch , Searceym er el y

stands fo r the pr opos iti on tha t whe n asc hool ha s op en ed it se lf to outsi de speakers for som e school-spo nsored function , such as career day , it m ay not dis cr im inate a ga ins t the out sid e spe ak er s’ vie wpoi nts . I a m c om pe lle d to dis tin gui sh Searceyand conclude H aze lw ood perm its viewpoint-based dis cr im inatio n a ga ins t sc hool -s pons or ed stu de nt e xpr es sio n f

or thr ee r ea sons . First, language in th e H

aze lw ood opi nio n it se lf

sug ge sts sc hool s m ay

c en sor sc hool -s pons or ed

stu de nt e xpr es sio n onthe ba sis of it s vi ew poi nt: Asc hool m

ust a lso r et ai n th e au tho ri ty

to re fu se to spon sor

stu de nt spe ec h that m igh t unre as ona bly be pe rc ei ve d to a dvoc at e dr ug o r al co hol use , ir

re spon sib le se x, or

c ondu ct oth er w ise inc onsi ste nt w ith the share d va lue s of

ac ivi liz ed

soc ia l or de r, or

to as soc ia te the sc hool with any positi on oth er than neutrality on m atters of political c o n tr o v e r s y.22

H aze lw ood , 484 U . S. a t 27 1, 108 S . Ct . a t 57 0 ( em pha sis a dde d; c itatio ns and int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ). T his langua ge sug ge sts sc hool s m ay pr om ote sc hool -s pons or ed

stu de nt e xpr es sio n th at

a dvoc at es c er

ta in v ie w s, w hil e sim ultaneous ly

censoring schoo l-spons ored student exp ression that advo cates co ntr ar y vie w s. T his is the e pit om e of dis cr im inatio n ba se d onvie wpoi nt. W e did not de al w ithstu de nt e xpr es sio n in Searcey ; the re fo re w e ha d no r ea son to a ddr es s thi s H aze lw ood language. Second, despite H

aze lw ood ’ s si le nc e on v ie wpoi nt n eu tr al ity , the m aj or ity of our sis te r ci rc uit s to c onsi de r the que sti on h av e he ld H aze lw ood pe rm its vie wpoi nt- ba se d di sc ri m inatio n. T he F ir st and T en th C ir cu its have he ld H aze lw ood pe rm it s v ie wpo in t d is cri m in at io n. F le m ing v . J ef fe rso n C ount y Sc h. Dist. R- 1 , 29 8 F .3d91 8, 9 28 (10 th Cir . 20 02 ), cert. denied , 537 U. S. 1110 , 123 S. Ct. 893 (200 3); W

ard v. H ickey , 996 F . 2d 4 48, 453 –54 (1 st C ir . 199 3) . O nly the N inth C ir cu it ha s c onc lud ed H aze lw ood do es no t p erm itvi ewp oi nt di sc riminat io n. Se e P lan ne d Pare nth ood of S . Ne v. , I nc . v . Clark

Co unt y Sc h. D ist . , 941 F . 2d 8 17, 829 (9 th C ir . 199 1) ( enbanc ) (ana ly zi ng whe the r a ce nsor shi p w as vie wpoi nt neutral, w ithou t first explaining whether H aze lw ood r equir es vie wpoi nt neutrality ).23

The m aj ority

rule of the F irst and Tenth Circ uits better addresses the special sit ua tio n of pub lic sc hool s by

giv ing e duc at or s di sc re tio n to dis cr im inate a ga ins t sc hool -s pons or ed

stu de nt e xpr es sio n onthe ba sis of vie wpoi nt. A s th e T en th Circuit explained, the H

aze lw ood Court’ s “ specific re asons supportin g greater co ntr ol o ve r sc hool -s pons or ed spe ec h, suc h a s de te rm ini ng the appr opr ia te ne ss o f the m es sa ge , the se nsi tiv ity of the iss ue , and w ithw hic h m es sa ge s asc hool chooses to associate itself, often will turn on viewpoint-based judgm ents.” F le m ing , 298 F. 3d at 928 . “ No doubt th e school couldprom ote student speech advoc at ing a ga ins t dr

ug u se , w ith out

be ing obl igate d to spo nsor spe ec h w iththe op po si ng vi ewp oi nt . H

aze lw ood entrusts to educators th ese decisions that require j udgm ents based on v iewpoint.” Id. I agre e. If viewpoint discrim ination we re fo rb idd en , the n asc hool that a llo w ed am ur al to say

“ G od l ove s y ou. Wha t part of thou shalt didn ’ t y ou un derstand? G od” m ight also have to allow a m ural to say

“ You r Godis de ad . Lon g l iv e Bee lz eb ub .” Thi s wo ul d b e an ab su rdres ul t. Inc ontra st, the m ino ri ty

appr oa chof

the N inth C ir cu it is n ot p er sua siv e b e c au s e i tn e v e r

e x p l a i n e dwh y H

aze lw ood proscribes viewpoint-based discrim ination . Indeed, a Ninth Circuit panel re cently criticize d the Planned P are nth ood

de ci sio n be ca

use , “ [d ] es pit e the abse nc e of e xpr es s ‘ vie wpoi nt ne utr al ity ’ dis cu ssi on any w he re in H

aze lw ood , the P lan ne d Pare nth ood courtIcaution, howe ver, that when a sc hool discriminates ag ainst expression on the basis of 1 its viewpoint, itruns a greater risk of ha ving its policy

struck down f

or its failure to be rea sonably

related to leg itimate pedag og ical conc erns. SeeSamuel P. J ordan, N ote, Viewpoint Restrictions and School-Sponsored Student Spe ech: Ave nues for Heightene d Protection , 70 U. Chi. L . Rev. 1555, 1573 (2003) ( explaining schools should not allow viewpoint discrimination ag ainst school-sponsored e x pression to be justified “w ith justany pedag og ical purpose ”). F or e xamp le , I

wo uld be ha rd pr e sse d to fi nd

a sc ho ol p oli c y

wa s r e a so na

bly re late d to any

le g iti mate pedag og ical conc ern if it sponsore d student expression in favor of Republica ns, but did not permit school-sponsore d student expression in favor of D emocr ats, or vice -ver sa. 24 i n c o r p o r a t e d‘v i e wp o i n tn e u tr a l i ty’ an a l ys i s i n t o n o np ub l i c f o r u m, school-sp onso red speech ca ses in our Circuit.” D ow ns v . L os A nge les U nif ie d Sc h. D ist . , 228 F. 3d 10 03, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000 ). T hir d, a s apol ic y

m atte r, unl ike oth er

sc hool -s pons or ed

e xpr es sio n, sc hool au tho ri tie s ne ed

m or e dis cr et ionto co ntr ol s ch ool -s pons or ed stu de nt sp eak ers . Schools m

ust no t be “ undu ly

constrained from

fulfilling th eir role a s a principal instrum ent in awakening the child to cultu ral values, in preparing him for later professional training , and in h elping h im to adjust norm ally

to his envi ronm ent.” H aze lw ood , 484 U . S. a t 27 2, 108 S . Ct . a t 57 0 ( ci ta tio n and i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ark s o m it te d) . Additionally , in the long run, this approach will prom ote m ore school-sp onso red expression by givin g school adm inistrators m ore control over the vie wpoi nt o f suc h e xpr es sio n. Se e id. at 2 76 n.9 , 10 8 S . Ct. at57 2 n .9 1 (s ugge sti ng tha t, if

a dm ini str at or s w er e not

giv ensuc h c ontro l, sc hool s w oul d te nd to s ile nc e al l sc hool -s pons or ed e xpr es sio n r athe r than a llo wunc ontro lle d sc hool -Given my conclusion, there is no need for me to addre ss Appellees’ alternative 2 argume nt t

hat th e y ha d a le g iti mate pe da g og ic a l c on c e rn in a vo idi ng an E sta bli shme nt C la

us e violation. 25 spon sor ed

e xpr es sio n) ; F

le m ing , 298 F . 3d at 93 4 ( “ Whe n po se d w ithsuc h a ch oic e, sc hool s m ay

ve ry w el l e le ct

to not spo nsor spe ec h a t a ll, the re by

li m iti ng spe ec h in ste ad

of inc re as ing it . ”) . I f sc hool s c annot c ontro l the vie wpoi nt o f the student expression th ey

spons or, ther e w ill likelybe few er school-spons ored stu de nt p ubl ic at ion s, stu de nt the atri ca l pr oduc tio ns, stu de nt c onc er ts, stu de nt spe ec he s, or

oth er e xpr es siv e ac tiv iti es f

or stu de nts . For these re asons, I conclude H aze lw ood pe rm its sc hool s to dis cr im inate ag ai nst sc hool -s pons or ed

stu de nt e xpr es sio n onthe ba sis of vie wpoi nt. A school’ s censorship o f school-spon sored studen t expression su rvives reviewunder H

aze lw ood if it is rea sonablyrelate d to legiti m ate pedagogical co nc er ns. 484 U . S. a t 27 3, 108 S . Ct . a t 57 1. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly he ld Appe lle es ha d ale git im at e pe da gogi ca l c onc er n ina voi din g di sr

upt ionto the le arn in g e nv iro nm en t fr om rel ig io us de ba te erupt in g o n s ch oo l wal ls . F le m ing , 298 F. 3d at 93 4. I be lie ve Appe lle es ’ pol ic y in pr ohi bit ing r el igi ous expr es sio n on its w al ls w as r ea sona

bly r el at ed to thi s le git im at e pe da gogi ca l c onc er n. 226

Sh ar ah ’ s m

ur al s w er e sc hool -s pons or ed e xpr es sio n inanonpubl ic f or um subject to re striction un der H aze lw ood – the m urals we re painted as part of a curr ic ular ac tiv ity

and the pub lic , a s w el l a s te ac he rs and s tud en ts, c oul d have re as ona bly be lie ve d th e m

ur al s bo re the im

pr im at ur of the sc hool . A lth ough Appe lle es c en sor ed

S harah’ s sc hool -s pons or ed m ur al s onthe ba sis of

the ir rel ig io us vi ewp oi nt , H

aze lw ood perm its such v iewpoint discrim ination so long as th e sc ho ol ’s act io ns are re as on ab ly relat edto leg it im at e p ed ag og ic al co nc ern s. He re, the school’s re quest that Sharah paint over certain parts of her m urals wa s re as ona bly r el at ed to the sc hool ’ s in te re st i n avoi din g di sr upt ionto the le ar

nin g en vir onm en t c au se d by

the r ea ct ionto the m

ur al s. T he re fo re , I c onc lud e that the sc hool ’ s vi ew

poi nt- ba se d di sc ri m inatio n, not c ont en t- ba se d, w as pe rm iss ibl e under H aze lw ood .