Lexplug logoLexplug

Dean Poling v. Ellis Murphy

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
872 F.2d 757 (1989)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

School officials do not violate the First Amendment when they exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored activities, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, such as teaching civility.


Facts:

  • Dean Poling, a junior at Unicoi County High School, was a candidate for student council president.
  • As required, Poling submitted a draft of his campaign speech to a faculty sponsor, Mrs. Ollis, for review before a mandatory school assembly.
  • The draft contained a line criticizing 'the administration’s iron grip,' which Mrs. Ollis instructed Poling to change.
  • Poling delivered a revised speech at the assembly that retained a reference to the school's 'iron grip' but also added a new, unapproved remark questioning why Assistant Principal Mr. Davidson 'stutter[s] while he is on the intercom.'
  • Mr. Davidson did not, in fact, have a speech impediment.
  • After the speech, Principal Ellis Murphy and other school officials decided to disqualify Poling from the election.
  • The school then made an announcement over the public address system informing students that any votes cast for Dean Poling would not be counted.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dean Poling, by his parents, filed a civil rights action in the United States District Court against school administrators and the Board of Education.
  • The complaint alleged violations of Poling's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
  • The defendants moved for summary judgment.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case.
  • Poling, the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Locked

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 high school violate a student's First Amendment rights by disqualifying him from a student council election for making a 'discourteous' and 'rude' speech about a school administrator at a school-sponsored assembly?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge David A. Nelson

No, the school did not violate the student's First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier held that educators can exercise control over student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. A student council election assembly is a school-sponsored activity, not a public forum for personal expression like the armbands in Tinker v. Des Moines. The court found that teaching civility, courtesy, and respect for others are legitimate pedagogical concerns. The school's decision to disqualify Poling for his discourteous and inappropriate remarks about the assistant principal was reasonably related to the legitimate educational goal of promoting shared values of a civilized social order.


Dissenting - Judge Merritt

Yes, the school violated the student's First Amendment rights. The majority applied the incorrect legal standard. Poling's speech was political speech, which should be governed by the standard from Tinker v. Des Moines, not Hazelwood. Under Tinker, student political speech is protected unless it materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder. Poling's speech, while critical of the administration, caused no such disruption. The majority's reliance on 'civility' and 'bad taste' effectively silences student political dissent and prevents students from engaging in meaningful dialogue with their educators about school policies.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies and expands the broad authority granted to school officials under Hazelwood to regulate student speech in school-sponsored activities. It clarifies that 'legitimate pedagogical concerns' are not limited to academics but extend to instilling social values like civility and respect for authority. The ruling creates a starker divide between the highly protected 'personal' student speech under Tinker and the less-protected 'sponsored' speech under Hazelwood, signaling a high level of judicial deference to schools' disciplinary and editorial judgments in curricular and extracurricular contexts.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Dean Poling v. Ellis Murphy (1989) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Dean Poling v. Ellis Murphy