Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District
987 F.2d 989 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school's mandatory, unpaid community service graduation requirement does not violate the First Amendment as compelled expressive conduct, nor does it constitute involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- The Bethlehem Area School District adopted a graduation requirement that public high school students must complete 60 hours of unpaid community service over four years.
- The program's stated goals are to help students acquire life skills, understand civic responsibility, and gain a sense of worth.
- Students can choose from an extensive list of over 70 pre-approved organizations, or they can design their own individual service project with parental and school approval.
- Approved organizations must be non-discriminatory and free from 'doctrinal motivation.'
- After completing the service, students must fill out a form describing their duties and what they gained from the experience.
- Lynn Ann Steirer and David Stephen Moralis, students who already performed volunteer work, objected to being forced to perform community service as a condition of graduation.
- Students who do not satisfactorily complete the 60-hour requirement will not receive a high school diploma.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynn Ann Steirer, David Stephen Moralis, and their parents sued the Bethlehem Area School District and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to stop the enforcement of the mandatory community service program.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants (the School District).
- The plaintiffs (Steirer and Moralis) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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's mandatory community service graduation requirement violate students' First Amendment rights against compelled speech or their Thirteenth Amendment rights against involuntary servitude?
Opinions:
Majority - Sloviter, Chief Judge.
No. A mandatory community service program does not violate either the First or Thirteenth Amendments. For an act to be expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, it must be intended to convey a particularized message that is likely to be understood by those who view it. Here, the act of performing community service is not inherently expressive; an observer is just as likely to view a student's service as simply fulfilling a graduation requirement as they are to view it as an affirmation of a belief in altruism. Because the program offers students a wide variety of service options and does not require them to profess a belief in the value of community service to pass, it does not compel speech. Furthermore, the program does not constitute involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment, which is intended to prohibit conditions 'akin to African slavery.' The requirement is an educational program for the students' benefit, and the choice between performing the service and forgoing a diploma, while difficult, is not the kind of physical or legal coercion prohibited by the amendment.
Analysis:
This decision grants public schools significant authority to implement mandatory community service programs as part of their curriculum. It establishes that such programs, when structured with sufficient student choice and without requiring an ideological affirmation, do not constitute compelled speech under the First Amendment. The ruling also narrowly construes the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition on involuntary servitude, clarifying that it does not apply to educational requirements or civic duties, even if they are mandatory and uncompensated. This precedent makes it difficult to challenge similar educational programs on First or Thirteenth Amendment grounds, reinforcing the broad discretion of school boards in setting curriculum.
Unlock the full brief for Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District