BROUSSARD BY LORD v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk
801 F. Supp. 1526, 1992 WL 213889, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13619 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Public schools may regulate student expression that they reasonably regard as lewd, vulgar, or offensive as part of their educational mission to teach students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior, even if the speech does not cause a material or substantial disruption.
Facts:
- Kimberly Broussard, a twelve-year-old seventh-grade student at Blair Middle School, purchased a t-shirt at a 'New Kids on the Block' concert.
- The front of the shirt was printed with the words 'Drugs Suck!' in large letters.
- On April 17, 1991, Broussard wore the t-shirt to her school.
- Several teachers and school administrators, including the dean of students and the assistant principal, deemed the shirt inappropriate due to the word 'suck' and asked Broussard to change it, turn it inside out, or borrow another shirt.
- Broussard's mother was contacted and, after a series of confusing conversations with school officials, supported her daughter's decision to not change the shirt.
- The school principal, Mr. Caprio, presented Broussard and her stepfather with the options of changing the shirt and returning to class, or going home for the rest of the day.
- Broussard was informed that if she remained at school without changing her shirt, she would be suspended.
- Broussard refused to change her shirt and left the school with her stepfather, after which she was formally suspended for one day.
Procedural Posture:
- Kimberly Broussard, by her next friend, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against school administrators in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Plaintiff alleged violations of her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free speech rights.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on both claims, which the court denied.
- The court held a bench trial on the due process and First Amendment issues.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the court granted judgment as a matter of law for the defendants on the due process claim, leaving only the First Amendment claim for decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public middle school's prohibition of a t-shirt bearing the phrase 'Drugs Suck!' violate the student's First Amendment right to free speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Doumar, District Judge
No. The school's prohibition of the t-shirt did not violate the student's First Amendment rights because public schools have the authority to prohibit speech they reasonably consider to be vulgar and offensive as part of their fundamental educational mission. The court distinguished this case from Tinker v. Des Moines, which protects non-disruptive political speech, and instead applied the standard from Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. Under Fraser, schools have a responsibility to teach students 'the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior' and may regulate speech that is 'lewd, indecent, or offensive.' The court found that school administrators reasonably concluded that the word 'suck' has sexual connotations and is vulgar, making it inappropriate for a middle school environment with students aged eleven to fifteen. Therefore, the school acted within its permissible authority to regulate the manner of expression, regardless of the shirt's positive anti-drug message.
Analysis:
This case reinforces and clarifies the scope of the Supreme Court's decision in Bethel School District v. Fraser, extending its application from speech at a school-sponsored event to passive speech on a student's clothing. It solidifies the principle that schools have significant authority to regulate student expression that is deemed vulgar or offensive, separate from the 'material and substantial disruption' standard established in Tinker v. Des Moines for political speech. The decision underscores the deference federal courts typically grant to school officials in determining what is pedagogically appropriate and in maintaining an environment conducive to teaching civility and mature conduct. Consequently, future challenges to school dress codes or speech policies based on vulgarity are less likely to succeed.
