Hazelwood: Important Passage

"The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular
student speech—the question that we addressed in Tinker—is different from the
question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote
particular student speech. The former question addresses educators’ ability to silence a
student’s personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises. The latter
question concerns educators’ authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.

 Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student
expression to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to
teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate
for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not
erroneously attributed to the school. . . .

Accordingly, we conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for determining
when a school may punish student expression need not also be the standard for
determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the
dissemination of student expression. 

Instead, we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.. . . It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment . . . require[s] judicial intervention to protect students’
constitutional rights." Casebook at p.1461-1462