Melton v. Young
328 F.Supp. 88, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12797 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Public school officials may prohibit student expression if they can demonstrate a reasonable basis to forecast that the expression will lead to a substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, particularly when that forecast is based on recent, concrete events of disorder directly linked to the expression.
Facts:
- Brainerd High School, a recently desegregated public school, had a tradition of using the "Rebel" nickname, the Confederate flag as a school symbol, and the song "Dixie" as its pep song.
- During the 1969-1970 school year, these symbols became a focal point of racial tension, leading to protests and walkouts by Black students.
- The tensions escalated into significant disorder, including altercations between students, a near-riot at a football game, and community-wide unrest that prompted a city-wide curfew.
- Further racial confrontations, fights, rock-throwing, and fires in the spring of 1970 forced the school to close on two separate occasions.
- Following these events, the School Board adopted a policy for the 1970-1971 school year discontinuing the use of the Confederate flag as an official school symbol.
- Rod Melton, a student who had attended Brainerd High during the previous year's turmoil, wore a jacket with a Confederate flag emblem sewn on the sleeve to school on September 8, 1970.
- The school principal, Dr. Von Schaaf, asked Melton to remove the emblem or the jacket, stating it was provocative and a violation of the school code.
- Melton refused to remove the emblem and returned the next day wearing the same jacket, at which point he was suspended until he agreed not to display the symbol at school.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, Rod Melton and his parents, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court against the defendants, who were school authorities.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction shortly after the suspension.
- An agreement was reached whereby the student would return to school without the emblem pending a final decision, ensuring the case would not be moot.
- At a pretrial conference, plaintiffs' counsel stated their intent to drop claims of procedural due process and equal protection violations to focus solely on the First Amendment freedom of speech claim.
- The case proceeded to a trial on the merits before the District Court judge.
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 the suspension of a high school student for wearing a Confederate flag patch, in a school with a recent history of significant race-based disruption related to that symbol, violate the student's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilson, Frank W.
No. The suspension of the student for wearing a Confederate flag patch did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments under these circumstances. While the school's written rule against "provocative symbols" is unconstitutionally vague, the principal's action was permissible under the standard established in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Unlike Tinker, where there was only an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbances," the record here shows a clear and recent history of substantial and material disruption at Brainerd High School directly caused by the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag. The school had been closed twice and experienced significant racial turmoil. Therefore, the principal had a reasonable basis to forecast that the display of the flag would reignite this disorder, and was not required to wait for another disruption to occur before taking preventative action to maintain school discipline and safety.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial application and limitation of the student speech rights established in Tinker v. Des Moines. It clarifies that the Tinker standard is fact-sensitive and that the "forecast of substantial disruption" cannot be based on mere speculation but must be supported by concrete evidence. The decision establishes that a school's specific, recent history of turmoil directly linked to a particular symbol can justify the restriction of that symbol, even if it constitutes protected speech in other contexts. This creates a clear distinction between suppressing expression due to unpopularity versus restricting it to prevent a recurrence of documented, serious disorder, giving school administrators more defined authority in volatile situations.
