Neither Tinker, nor Hazelwood, nor Fraser, Nor Morse: Why Violent Student Assignments Represent a Unique First Amendment Challenge

This Article will both (1) explore a subset of violent student speech cases that could rightly be considered under Hazelwood if only the student expression bore the sign of official school sponsorship and (2) argue for the creation of a new standard based on Hazelwood to govern non-sponsored curricular speech. Furthermore, this new standard would operate much like the current Hazelwood analysis with one key distinction: where student speech is curricular and non-sponsored in nature, the only options available to school administrators would be those representing pedagogical counter-speech. Punitive discipline, such as the suspension seen in Cuff, would not be allowed under this new standard because it represents a corruption of the education process and a fundamental unfairness to students whose only transgression was to simply turn in an assignment or otherwise attempt to further their education.