1 U.S. Const. amend. I; see, e.g., Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).
2 Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506.
3 See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 273 (1988).
4 Id.
5 See id. at 271.
6 See, e.g., Fleming v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. R-1, 298 F.3d 918, 929, 934 (10th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1110 (2003) (mem.); Planned Parenthood of S. Nev., Inc. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 941 F.2d 817, 828 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
7 Compare Brown v. Li, 308 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying Hazelwood’s reasonableness test), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1488 (2003) (mem.), with Kincaid v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 342, 354 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (Kincaid II) (applying strict scrutiny).
8 308 F.3d at 952.
9 Id. at 947.
10 Id. at 943.
11Id. at 963 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
12 Id. at 949 (Graber, J.).
13 Brown, 308 F.3d at 963 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
14 484 U.S. at 273 n.7.
15 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 947.
16 Kincaid v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 719, 726 (6th Cir. 1999) (Kincaid I), reh’g en banc granted and vacated by 197 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 1999), rev’d and remanded en banc, Kincaid II, 236 F.3d 342.
17 191 F.3d at 728.
18 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 346.
19 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 947; Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 346.
20 See infra notes 27–200 and accompanying text.
21 See George C. Lisby, Resolving the Hazelwood Conundrum: The First Amendment Rights of College Students in Kincaid v. Gibson and Beyond, 7 Comm. L. & Pol’y 129, 155–56 (2002); Richard J. Peltz, Censorship Tsunami Spares College Media: To Protect Free Expression on Public Campuses, Lessons from the “College Hazelwood” Case, 68 Tenn. L. Rev. 481, 533 (2001); Mark J. Fiore, Comment, Trampling the “Marketplace of Ideas”: The Case Against Extending Hazelwood to College Campuses, 150 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1915, 1948 (2002).
22 See infra notes 27–50 and accompanying text.
23 See infra notes 51–110 and accompanying text.
24 See infra notes 111–200 and accompanying text.
25 See infra notes 201–233 and accompanying text.
26 See infra notes 234–289 and accompanying text.
27 See 393 U.S. 503, 511–14 (1969).
28 Id. at 504.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 508.
31 Id.
32 Tinker, 393 U.S. at 514.
33 Id. at 509 (quoting Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1966)).
34 See id. at 506–07.
35 Id. at 508.
36 Id. at 509.
37 See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 512.
38 Id.
39 See id. at 512–13.
40 Id. at 510–11.
41 See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983); see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828–29 (1995) (stating “[i]t is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys. . . . When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant”).
42 Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 681 (1986); see Tinker, 393 U.S. at 511.
43 478 U.S. at 685. Although the majority characterized Matthew N. Fraser’s speech as “lewd,” “vulgar,” and “offensive,” id. at 683, Justice Brennan noted that Fraser did not use any obscene language that would remove his speech from First Amendment protection, id. at 688 (Brennan, J., concurring).
44 Id. at 680.
45 See id. at 685.
46 Id. at 683.
47 Id. at 681.
48 Fraser, 478 U.S. at 681.
49 Id. at 685–86.
50 See id. at 683; see also Peltz, supra note 21, at 491.
51 See 484 U.S. 260, 273 (1988).
52 Id. at 262–63.
53 Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 607 F. Supp. 1450, 1466 (D. Mo. 1985), rev’d, 795 F.2d 1368 (8th Cir. 1986), rev’d and remanded, 484 U.S. 260.
54 See Hazelwood, 795 F.2d at 1373–74.
55 See id. at 1375–76.
56 See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266, 273.
57 Id. at 266 (quoting Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) and Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969)).
58 Id. at 267–72 (analyzing first the nature of the forum, then the type of speech).
59 Id. at 274–76.
60 See id. at 267; see also Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).
61 See, e.g., Perry, 460 U.S. at 45–46. Some courts refer to a limited public forum as a “designated” public forum when the forum has been reserved for speech pertaining to a designated subject or purpose. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 803 (1985) (referring to this type of forum as a “public forum by designation”).
62 See Perry, 460 U.S. at 45.
63 See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 800; Perry, 460 U.S. at 45.
64 Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 800; Perry, 460 U.S. at 45.
65 Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 800; see Perry, 460 U.S. at 46.
66 Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806; Perry, 460 U.S. at 46.
67 Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 809.
68 Id. at 808.
69 Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 267.
70 Id.
71 Id. at 270.
72 See id. at 268, 270.
73 Id. at 270.
74 Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 270.
75 See id. at 270–72.
76 Id. at 271.
77 Id.
78 See id.
79 Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273. For the view that the Hazelwood standard does not change the test for reasonableness in a nonpublic forum, but rather is merely an application of that standard to the public school setting, see Searcey v. Harris. 888 F.2d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 1989).
80 See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273.
81 See id. at 272, 273 n.7.
82 Id. at 273 n.7 (stating “[w]e need not now decide whether the same degree of deference is appropriate with respect to school-sponsored expressive activities at the college and university level”).
83 See id. at 276.
84 Id.
85 Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 274–75.
86 Id. at 276.
87 Id. at 278 (Brennan, J., dissenting); see Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509.
88 Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 289 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
89 See id. at 278 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
90 See id. at 280–81 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
91 Id. at 281 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
92 See id. at 281–82 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
93 See 484 U.S. at 282 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
94 See, e.g., Ward v. Hickey, 996 F.2d 448, 452 (1st Cir. 1993) (holding that a school committee may regulate a teacher’s classroom speech if the Hazelwood test is met and the teacher has notice of what conduct is prohibited); Poling v. Murphy, 872 F.2d 757, 762–64 (6th Cir. 1989) (upholding disqualification of a high school student from school elections because the student criticized the school administration in a campaign speech).
95 See, e.g., C.H. v. Oliva, 195 F.3d 167, 172 (3d Cir. 1999), reh’g en banc granted and vacated by 197 F.3d 63 (3d Cir. 1999), aff’d en banc by an equally divided court, 226 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000); Planned Parenthood of S. Nev., Inc. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 941 F.2d 817, 829 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); see also Fleming v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. R-1, 298 F.3d 918, 926 (10th Cir. 2002) (discussing circuit split over viewpoint discrimination by school officials), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1110 (2003) (mem.).
96 Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995).
97 Id. at 829–30.
98 Perry, 460 U.S. at 46.
99 See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273.
100 See Fleming, 298 F.3d at 926; C.H., 195 F.3d at 172; Ward, 996 F.2d at 454. For an argument supporting this view, see Janna J. Annest, Note and Comment, Only the News That’s Fit to Print: The Effect of Hazelwood on the First Amendment Viewpoint-Neutrality Requirement in Public School-Sponsored Forums, 77 Wash. L. Rev. 1227, 1258–59 (2002).
101 See Planned Parenthood, 941 F.2d at 829; Searcey, 888 F.2d at 1325.
102 See 298 F.3d at 926.
103 Id. at 920–21.
104 Id. at 921.
105 Id. at 921–22.
106 See id. at 926–28.
107 See Fleming, 298 F.3d at 926.
108 See id. at 928.
109 See id. at 934.
110 See id. at 926; Perry, 460 U.S. at 46.
111 See Peltz, supra note 21, at 509; see, e.g., Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972).
112 Healy, 408 U.S. at 180 (stating, “the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large”).
113 Id.
114 See Brown v. Li, 308 F.3d 939, 947 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1488 (2003) (mem.); Kincaid v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 719, 726 (6th Cir. 1999) (Kincaid I), reh’g en banc granted and vacated by 197 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 1999), rev’d and remanded en banc, 236 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2001) (Kincaid II).
115 See, e.g., Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 410 U.S. 667, 671 (1973); Healy, 408 U.S. at 184.
116 408 U.S. at 172, 194.
117 Id. at 176.
118 Id. at 184.
119 See id.
120 Id. at 185–87.
121 Healy, 408 U.S. at 187–88.
122 Id. at 189 (citing Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969)).
123 Id.
124 Id. at 194.
125 See Kincaid I, 191 F.3d at 721. The yearbook covered two years of campus life. Id. at 723.
126 236 F.3d at 344.
127 191 F.3d at 724.
128 Id. at 727–28.
129 Id. at 727; see Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 270 (1988). In a footnote, the panel recognized that a school publication may not be considered a traditional public forum, but may constitute a limited or designated public forum entitled to full protection under the First Amendment. See Kincaid I, 191 F.3d at 727 n.3.
130 See Kincaid I, 191 F.3d at 727.
131 See id. at 728.
132 Id.
133 Id. at 729.
134 Id. at 723.
135 Kincaid I, 191 F.3d at 729.
136 Id. at 729 n.4.
137 Id.
138 Id.
139 See id.
140 Kincaid I, 191 F.3d at 730 (Cole, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
141 Id. at 731 (Cole, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
142 See id. (Cole, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
143 Id. at 730–31 n.1 (Cole, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
144 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 349, 354.
145 See id. at 344; Kincaid I, 191 F.3d at 730–32 (Cole, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
146 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 347–52.
147 See id. at 348–49.
148 See id. at 349–52.
149 See id.
150 See id. at 354 (citing Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983)).
151 Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 354.
152 Id.
153 Id.
154 Id.
155 Id.
156 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 355.
157 See id. at 355–56 (applying the standard for a nonpublic forum under Perry, 460 U.S. at 46).
158 See id. at 356.
159 See id.
160 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 947.
161 Id. at 943.
162 Id. Brown’s original “Disacknowledgements” section contained profane language and identified several university administrators and other public officials as having hindered Brown’s graduate career. Id.
163 Id. at 943–44. The university’s Guide to Filing Theses and Dissertations included general criteria for an optional “Dedication and/or Acknowledgments” section of a thesis. Id. at 942. The thesis committee refused to approve the “Disacknowledgements” section even after Brown removed all profanities. Id. at 943.
164 Id. at 944–45.
165 Brown, 308 F.3d at 945.
166 Id.
167 Id. at 945, 947.
168 Id. at 946.
169 Id. at 954.
170 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 947.
171 Id.; see Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273.
172 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 952.
173 See id.
174 Id. at 954.
175 See id. at 952.
176 Id.
177 Brown, 308 F.3d at 952.
178 Id.
179 Id. at 949.
180 See id.; Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 346 n.5.
181 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 950 (citing Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 862 (1982)). In Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a local school board could not remove books from the school library on the basis that the board members did not like the ideas contained within the books. 457 U.S. at 872. The Court limited its holding to books contained in the library for optional reading and did not reach the issue with regard to textbooks or other books used in classroom teaching. Id. at 861–62.
182 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 948; Settle v. Dickson County Sch. Bd., 53 F.3d 152, 155 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that a teacher could limit speech in the classroom “in the name of learning,” so long as restrictions on speech are not a pretext for punishing a student for a particular viewpoint).
183 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 948–49.
184 53 F.3d at 155.
185 Id. at 154.
186 Id. at 155.
187 Brown, 308 F.3d at 953.
188 Id.
189 Id. Although Brown did not have to include an Acknowledgements section in his thesis, if he chose to do so, the committee could restrict the content of that section. Id.
190 See id. at 957 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
191 See id. at 958, 960 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
192 Brown, 308 F.3d at 957 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
193 See id. at 963 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
194 See id. at 961 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
195 See id. (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 274 n.14 (1981) (noting that “[u]niversity students are, of course, young adults. They are less impressionable than younger students and should be able to appreciate that the University’s policy is one of neutrality toward religion.”)).
196 See id. (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
197 Id. at 963 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 271–73.
198 See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 271; Brown, 308 F.3d at 963 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
199 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 963 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 349.
200 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 964 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
201 See 308 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1488 (2003) (mem.).
202 Id.; see Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 273 (1988).
203 Kincaid v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 719, 726 (6th Cir. 1999) (Kincaid I), reh’g en banc granted and vacated by 197 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 1999), rev’d and remanded en banc, 236 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2001) (Kincaid II).
204 See infra notes 206–222 and accompanying text for a discussion of the differences between secondary and higher education.
205 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 957 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
206 See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266; Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).
207 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 352.
208 Id.
209 See id. (citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 835 (1995)).
210 See, e.g., Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273.
211 Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506.
212 Id.; see Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 681 (1986).
213 See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 274–75.
214 See Fraser, 478 U.S. at 682.
215 See id.
216 See id.
217 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 352.
218 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 951; id. at 957 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
219 See id. at 951.
220 See id.
221 Id. at 957 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
222 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 352.
223 See Fleming v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. R-1, 298 F.3d 918, 926 (10th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1110 (2003) (mem.); C.H. v. Oliva, 195 F.3d 167, 172 (3d Cir. 1999), reh’g en banc granted and vacated by 197 F.3d 63 (3d Cir. 1999), aff’d en banc by an equally divided court, 226 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000); Ward v. Hickey, 996 F.2d 448, 454 (1st Cir. 1993).
224 See 298 F.3d at 928.
225 Id.
226 See 308 F.3d at 953.
227 Id.
228 See id.
229 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 352.
230 See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983); see also Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 356 (stating that, “in a traditional, limited, or nonpublic forum, state officials may not expunge even ‘garbage’ if it represents a speaker’s viewpoint”).
231 See 484 U.S. at 273; Fleming, 298 F.3d at 928.
232 Fleming, 298 F.3d at 928.
233 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 356 (noting that the university’s confiscation of the school yearbook “smacks of viewpoint discrimination”); see also Brown, 308 F.3d at 965 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (raising question of material fact about whether the university punished Brown for the viewpoint he sought to express).
234 See, e.g., Fleming v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. R-1, 298 F.3d 918, 926 (10th Cir. 2002) (high school case), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1110 (2003) (mem.); Brown v. Li, 308 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2002) (university case), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1488 (2003) (mem.); C.H. v. Oliva, 195 F.3d 167, 172 (3d Cir. 1999) (elementary school case), reh’g en banc granted and vacated by 197 F.3d 63 (3d Cir. 1999), aff’d en banc by an equally divided court, 226 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000).
235 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 955–56 (Ferguson, J., concurring).
236 See infra notes 237–289 and accompanying text.
237 See, e.g., Brown, 308 F.3d at 947.
238 See id. at 964 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
239 See id. (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
240 See id. at 963–64 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
241 See Kincaid v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 342, 356 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (Kincaid II).
242 See Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 509 (1969).
243 See id. at 506–07.
244 See id.
245 See id. at 512–13.
246 See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 274 (1988); Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508.
247 See infra notes 268–271 and accompanying text for a discussion of the disadvantages of public forum analysis.
248 See 393 U.S. at 506.
249 See Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 189 (1972); Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508.
250 See, e.g., Healy, 408 U.S. at 189.
251 See id.
252 Id.
253 See id.
254 See Erwin Chemerinsky, Students Do Leave Their First Amendment Rights at the Schoolhouse Gates: What’s Left of Tinker?, 48 Drake L. Rev. 527, 529 (2000) (citing Baxter v. Vigo County Sch. Corp., 26 F.3d 728, 737 (7th Cir. 1994)).
255 See Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 680 (1986).
256 See 484 U.S. at 270–71.
257 See id.; see also Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506.
258 See, e.g., Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 352. In Hosty v. Carter, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit similarly recognized that the significant differences between universities and high schools require broader protection of First Amendment rights in higher education. See 325 F.3d 945, 949 (7th Cir. 2003), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, No. 01-4155 (7th Cir. June 25, 2003).
259 See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985).
260 236 F.3d at 349; see Brown, 308 F.3d at 964 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
261 Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983).
262 See 236 F.3d at 352.
263 See id.
264 See Brown, 308 F.3d at 964 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996) (applying intermediate scrutiny to gender-based classifications at a public university under equal protection analysis)).
265 See id. (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
266 See id. (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
267 See id. (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
268 See id. at 954 n.5; Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 348.
269 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 352.
270 308 F.3d at 954 n.5.
271 See id. at 952, 954 n.5; see also Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 267–70.
272 See Lisby, supra note 21, at 155–56.
273 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 352 (stating “[i]n addition to the nature of the university setting, we find it relevant that the editors of The Thorobred and its readers are likely to be young adults”).
274 See Lisby, supra note 21, at 155–56.
275 See id. at 155.
276 See id.
277 See 484 U.S. at 271.
278 See id.
279 See id.
280 See id. at 273 n.7; Healy, 408 U.S. at 194.
281 See Kincaid II, 236 F.3d at 354.
282 See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 271.
283 See id. at 272.
284 See id.
285 See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 512–13.
286 See id. at 506–07.
287 Brown, 308 F.3d at 964 (Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
288 See Healy, 408 U.S. at 184.
289 See id.