Governor Wentworth Regional School District v. Hendrickson, No. 05-133 (D. N.H. March 15, 2006)
A New Hampshire federal district court has ruled that a high school principal did not violate a student’s free speech rights by suspending him for wearing an arm patch with a swastika with the international “no” symbol superimposed over it. Paul Hendrickson is a student at Kingswood Regional High School (KRHS), which experienced a number of harassment and bullying incidents during the 2004-05 school year. Many of the incidents involved two readily identifiable groups, one known as the “homophobes” or “rednecks” and the other generally referred to as the “gay students.” Paul identifies himself with the latter. School officials took several measures to reduce tensions between the groups, such as holding a school-wide assembly to promote tolerance and meeting individually with students from both groups and their parents. They learned that members of the “redneck” group were taunting members of the other group in the hallways with a Nazi salute. In light of the killings at Red Lake, Minnesota by a student who professed admiration for Hitler, KRHS officials became concerned that some students seemed fascinated with the Nazis. When Paul and two members of his group wore the “No Nazis” patches to school, Principal Paul MacMillan ordered them to remove the patches or face suspension. Although Paul said he intended to convey a message of tolerance, he admitted the purpose of the patch was to “get in the faces” of the other group. Mr. MacMillan, fearing violence, suspended Paul until he agreed not to wear the patch in school. Paul eventually returned to school, wearing a substitute patch that read, “Censored for now.” Although school officials initially opposed this patch as well, they agreed to it after discussing the matter with Paul’s attorney. But Governor Wentworth Regional School District (GWRSD) brought suit seeking declaratory judgment in the matter, while Paul counterclaimed that his suspension had violated his First Amendment rights.
The district court initially rejected any suggestion that the censorship constituted viewpoint discrimination, noting that insofar as the patch was intended to convey a message of tolerance, the school district supported its message. Rather, the court agreed with GWRSD that the real message conveyed was one of intolerance and hatred toward the other group. While students do not surrender their free speech rights when they enter school grounds, the court observed, that right is subject to regulation by the school officials under appropriate circumstances. The court determined that Paul’s speech was controlled by the principles enunciated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). For GWRSD to prevail, it had to show that school administrators reasonably concluded that displaying the patch was likely to “materially disrupt” the educational environment, precipitate “substantial disorder,” or involve an “invasion of the rights of others.” While school officials need not wait for incidents of disruption or violence to occur before acting, they must have more than a “mere undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance” when they restrict student expression. Based on the incidents of harassment, the ongoing hostility between the two student groups, and the implausibility of Paul’s contention that the patch was intended to carry a message of tolerance, the court concluded that Mr. MacMillan’s actions met the test. The court emphasized that where a school administrator’s decision involves the safety of students, that official’s decision “is entitled to a fair measure of judicial deference, even when freedom of expression is involved.”
Governor Wentworth Regional School District v. Hendrickson, No. 05-133 (D. N.H. March 15, 2006)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: Another summary and commentary on the decision is available from the New Hampshire School Boards Association, below.]
[NHSBA on decision]