Viewpoint Restrictions and School-Sponsored Student Speech: Avenues for Heightened Protection

Normal constitutional rules do not always apply within the schoolhouse. The Supreme Court has concluded that the constitutional rights generally available in other social situations may not exist-at least not coextensively-in the educational context.' This general proposition embraces in particular the expressive rights of students. Although the First Amendment rights of students do not disappear when they enter a school building, they may be circumscribed. Student expression is clearly subject to limitation when it is sponsored by the school. In Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier,3 the Supreme Court determined that restrictions on school-sponsored student speech-defined to include speech that is in some respect affirmatively promoted by the school -are permissible if reasonably related to valid pedagogical purposes.4 Given the general judicial practice of deferring to the expertise of school authorities in deciding what constitutes a valid pedagogical purpose,' the Hazelwood standard accords wide latitude to the authorities regarding school-sponsored student expression. Restrictions on school-sponsored expression are either contentbased, prohibiting an entire subject of discourse, or viewpoint-based, prohibiting discussion about a subject from a particular perspective.6 Since content-based restrictions limit all expression on a subject, regardless of perspective, they do not discriminate among speakers and points of view on that subject, and judicial deference to school offi-