Watch Your Language: Student Profanity and Constitutional Rights
According to the Saturday Evening Post, “Baby Boomers use profanity 10 times a day, but members of Gen Z swear 24 times a day.” This is no surprise; in many settings, whether it be the workplace or simply at home, one will notice that their peers, colleagues and family members are swearing more often. And this growing societal trend doesn’t just stop there - it is evident within schools and educational environments as well. Profanity is becoming much more common among students, corresponding to an overall increase in other aspects of society. Still, students are punished at a much higher rate for the usage of indecorous language. Thus, the question arises: at what point does profane speech lose First Amendment protections in an educational setting? To what extent are schools allowed to punish one’s personal choices? To maintain a reasonable balance, schools should undoubtedly regulate speech that happens during school-sponsored activities or may disrupt education. However, they may not infringe on students’ First Amendment protections off-campus, where the school does not have any reason to do so. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) and Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. (2021) work to illustrate this balance between a student’s rights to free speech and an academic institution's right to enforce discipline.
To begin, it should be established that schools may restrict profanity in school settings, according to the law as decided in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. At a school assembly of approximately 600 people, Matthew Fraiser used sexual innuendos in a speech nominating a peer for student elective office. Acting based upon its code of conduct, Bethel High School suspended Fraser from school for two days. The Supreme Court ultimately held that it was completely appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Notably, Chief Justice Burger made a prominent distinction between political speech that was protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the sexual nature of Fraser’s speech. The argument was that schools have an interest in teaching decorum and civility - “fundamental values of the public school education” - and vulgar speech is inconsistent with those values. It becomes clear, then, that the First Amendment does not protect offensive and inappropriate language in a school setting because such language opposes the school’s intended teachings. However, what if the utterance of vulgar language happens outside of school? To what extent is that protected or unprotected?
Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. sets the standard for offensive speech outside of an academic setting. In the case, the plaintiff, B.L, did not make Mahanoy Area High School’s varsity cheerleading team and instead made junior varsity. Over a weekend and off campus, B.L posted a photo on Snapchat with a vulgar caption regarding her school and cheerleading team. Several students viewed this photo and some showed it to the coach, who then decided that the snap was a violation of school policies. As a result, B.L. was suspended from the junior varsity team for a year. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that suspending B.L. from the team was a violation of the First Amendment. They reasoned that the circumstances in which B.L. made the post put her under the jurisdiction of her parents - not the school - and considering that her speech did not disrupt education or threaten the rights of others, it was protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, the profane post did not warrant school disciplinary action. Mahanoy reveals the fact that schools have much less authority when it comes to regulating student speech off-campus and that, if schools were allowed to regulate said speech, it would infringe on a student’s right to freely express themselves.
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L work together to allot the times where it is acceptable for schools to discipline students for their speech and where it is not. While it is important to teach students about appropriate decorum, these teachings should be limited to the school environment. Outside of school, students are just citizens… citizens with the right to speak freely as much as any other adult. Schools must maintain an appropriate balance between the aspects of student character that they can and cannot discipline to ensure that each student is retaining the rights bestowed upon them by the Constitution.
Bibliography
"Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L." Oyez. Accessed June 26, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255.
"Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser." Oyez. Accessed June 26, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667.