Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Post Election Student Protest

   With the conclusion of a divisive election cycle, student protest, both for and against the election of Donald Trump and others this election cycle, is now part of the daily headlines. Some of this protest is occurring during the school day-during school hours-and on school property. With schools more than ever being held accountable for student outcomes, it seems inevitable that the patience of school principles and school system administrators will increasingly grow thin. With this there will likely be a flurry of sanctions imposed on protesting students only to be followed by inevitable litigation over the balance between First Amendment speech rights and the right of a school to maintain discipline and to preserve a positive learning environment.
   The fundamental right of students to engage in non-disruptive political protest on school grounds has been firmly upheld by the Supreme Court by such cases as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed 2d 731 (1969) (Court upholds student protestors rights to wear black armbands to protest Vietnam War) and its progeny. However, it has been equally established by the lower Circuits that schools may restrict even highly protected individual student expression when that expression materially and substantially interferes of school discipline, the work of the school, or the rights of other students. See e.g. Henerey ex rel. Henerey v. City of St. Charles School Dist., 200 F.3d 1128, 141 Ed. Law Rep. 95 (8th Cir. 1999). The critical issue in any inquiry involving student speech or protest is whether the act would substantially disrupt the activities of the school. Where this has occurred, the courts have extended considerable latitude to school officials and administrators to either restrict or prohibit the disruptive activity. See Westfield High School L.I.F.E. Club v. City of Westfield, 249 F. Supp. 2d 98, 175 Ed. Law Rep. 506 (D. Mass 2003)( School administrators act denying distribution of literature that was deemed disruptive upheld); Riggan v. Midland Independent School Dist., 86 F. Supp. 2d 647, 142 Ed. Law Rep. 836 (W.D. Tex. 2000) (student conduct that is materially disruptive not immunized by First Amendment).
   Thus it is fundamentally clear that student walkouts in the middle of the school day, student protest that has at its core denunciation of one party or another, and student vandalism--in short, all the things that have been transpiring across the United States for the past week -- all fall within the scope of administrative regulation. For now, the students have won the sympathy of those in charge. But when protest and non-attendance start disrupting the school day, when academic scores and school standings decline, and persistent offense become a regular feature of the American educational landscape, the tide of sympathy will most certainly turn against these protestors. At the end of the day, the integrity and productivity of the educational system will be held to be the paramount value, eclipsing the subjective unhappiness of many of the students that make it up. And it will again be the job of the American court system, like it was in 1969,  to sort it all out again.