One-day lesson plan
One-Day Morse v. Frederick Unit
Background Information and Description
Basic knowledge of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), Bethel v. Fraser (1986), and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) is important for both students and advisers. The first ten minutes of this lesson plan is devoted to a brief review of these three cases, which composed the original triumvirate of cases used by lower courts in student free expression cases. The Tinker case set the original standard for First Amendment rights in school: expression that did not invade the privacy of others or cause “substantial disruption” was protected. Fraser carved out the first exception to Tinker—obscene speech could be censored. Hazelwood carved out another exception—school-sponsored speech could be restricted due to “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” The Morse case created the third exception to the Tinker “substantial disruption” standard: speech advocating illegal drug use. For more information about the Morse case, consult the Instructors’ Background Information sheet.
The lower courts have interpreted Morse in three different ways. Narrow interpretations maintain the original intent (specified in Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion) that Morse should only apply to speech advocating illegal drug use. Broad interpretations expand Morse to include speech advocating illegal actions, unlawful behavior, illegal conduct, or illegal behavior. Incidental interpretations mention Morse but do not cite or interpret it. These cases may instead rely on one of the other three landmark Supreme Court cases in their decisions.
In this lesson, students will become familiar with the Supreme Court case Morse v. Frederick and its applications for scholastic journalism. The lesson is aligned to three key Common Core standards focusing on collaboration, discussion, and analysis.
The lesson begins with a brief overview of the three landmark Supreme Court cases mentioned above. Students then become acquainted with the Morse case facts and decision before delving into the ways lower courts have interpreted the case. Next, students will spend a long period of time collaboratively analyzing a broadly interpreted lower court case. They will post their analysis on a shared Google Doc. Finally, the class will further discuss how the various methods of interpreting Morse could affect their media program.
Objectives
- Students will demonstrate knowledge of the facts of the Morse decision and how it fits with previous Supreme Court decisions.
- Students will analyze recent lower court cases, and use outside sources to determine why the judges interpreted Morse
- Students will discuss potential limitations the Morse decision could place on student journalists and how to work around these limitations.
Key Common Core Standards
| Standard Number | Description |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.9 | Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.1 | Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grades 11-12 topics, texts, and issues, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.2 | Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. |
Length
- One 90-minute block
Materials / Resources
- Promethean Board or computer that projects onto a screen
- Student computers, laptops, or iPads
- Resources from the unit plan folder
- Lesson Step-by-Step
Bellringer (10 minutes): Review Tinker, Hazelwood, and Fraser by discussing the Limitations on Scholastic Journalism document. Be sure to focus on the bolded passages, and discuss what the exceptions mean for student media.[1]
Activity 1 (3 minutes): Project the following YouTube video from CNN onto the board. The video succinctly discusses the facts of the Morse case but does not discuss the decision itself. Allow students to determine how the case was decided by completing Activity 2.
Activity 2 (12 minutes): Post the following link and give students 3-4 minutes to read the article individually:
When students are finished reading, spend a few minutes discussing the Morse decision. Ask the following questions:
- How does this decision fit with the three cases we discussed at the beginning of class?
- Is it a new standard for courts, or simply another exception like Hazelwood and Fraser?
- What implications could you imagine this case having for scholastic journalism?
- Given your prior knowledge of student First Amendment rights, do you think the Supreme Court got this case right? Why or why not?
Activity 3 (15 minutes): Distribute the Case Handout file to students. Either print it, post it on Google Drive, or post it on a website. Briefly explain the difference between narrow, broad, and incidental interpretations of Morse. Refer to the Background Information section of this document if necessary.
Pick 2-3 cases to discuss with students. The process of case selection should be personal and tailored to your media program. Consider:
- Location: Picking cases that have taken place in your circuit
- Facts of the cases: Aspects of the cases that resonate with issues at your school or even within your media program
- Types of interpretations: Choosing one of each type of interpretation (narrow, broad, and incidental) using location and facts of the case to make final determinations
Activity 4 (40 minutes): Split the class into four groups and assign one of the broadly interpreted cases to each group. Post the document Articles for Broadly Interpreted Cases, and ask students to use the provided articles (together with any other resources the students find to utilize) to research the cases.
The editor-in-chief should create and share a Google Doc with the class. The document should contain a header for each of the four court cases. The groups should create a brief (maybe ¼ page) table with the following information:
- Facts of the case
- How it was decided
- Factors that led to broad interpretation (may require other sources or student analysis)
- How (if possible) this staff can avoid the factors that led to the case’s broad interpretation
The groups should finish in 30-35 minutes so they can quickly read about the other groups’ cases before the final discussion.
Closing (10 minutes): Ask students the following questions:
- Now that you know more about Morse and how it has been applied, discuss its importance and relevance for scholastic media. (Make sure the students remember that decisions from their circuit are more applicable.)
- What limitations could this case place on our program?
- How could we try to avoid these limitations?
Assessment
Assessment options for this brief unit are numerous. Consider one of the following assessment methods:
- Ask the editors to use the case study Google Doc and today’s discussion notes to create a statement for the program’s handbook. The statement should help staff members understand the limitations of Morse and also attempt to keep administrators from overstepping the reaches of Morse. (Directions in Ancillary Materials folder)
- If your program has had issues with the school board or administrators, have the students write a letter either in small groups or as a class. The focus of the letter will vary greatly depending on your particular situation. (Directions in Ancillary Materials folder)
- Role-play a situation that could result in your program going to court for something that would require the judges to interpret (Directions in Ancillary Materials folder)
- Create a website or handout that would teach a specific group of people (administrators, the public, etc.) about Morse and why it should be interpreted narrowly. (Directions in Ancillary Materials folder)
[1] Some advisers may not need to spend much time reviewing this information with their students, but others may need to spend part of a class period teaching these cases before engaging in this Morse lesson.
Return to teaching units and home:
Read MoreAncillary: Anticipation guide
Morse v. Frederick Anticipation Guide
Directions: Answer each question with a number, 1-5. 1 means you strongly disagree, 5 means you strongly agree, and 3 is neutral.
- Students like me deserve the same free speech rights as normal citizens.
- Just because I have the right to say or do something doesn’t always mean I should.
- I should be able to make political or religious statements in school.
- Our media program should be able to advocate illegal drug use.
- Our media program should be able to take political stances in editorials.
Ancillary: Media manual statement
Media Manual Statement
Create a brief, 50-100 word statement for the media program manual. The goal of this statement should be twofold. It should:
- help staff members understand and work around the limitations of Morse discussed earlier this class period
- attempt to keep administrators from overstepping the reaches of Morse
The first goal requires consideration of the school’s location (both because of the circuit it’s in, and for cultural reasons such as religion and politics). It will also require the application of knowledge distilled from this unit.
The second goal requires a strong definition of what Morse covers (from reliable sources). Alito’s concurring opinion would be a strong place to start crafting such a definition.
Read MoreAncillary: Morse persuasive letter
Morse Persuasive Letter
Through discussion with the students, determine the best recipient for a letter about the Morse decision—should it be administrators/school board? Judges? Someone else? Consider your publication’s needs as you make this decision.
- If the publication is or has already experienced legal issues with administrators, perhaps they should be the recipient of the letter.
- If the publication has not experienced legal issues, consider sending the letter to judges or legislators who could benefit from a better understanding of Morse’s original intention of only applying to illegal drug use.
Before starting the letter, discuss what the content should be:
- Disputing current rulings (judges/legislators)?
- Keeping administrators (or judges) from interpreting Morse broadly?
- Something else?
One group of junior staff members should research proper letter format and take care of the format, salutation and closing. Another group should develop the opening section for the letter (its purpose statement). A third group must present the information necessary for understanding Morse (the premise for the argument). The final group must write the brief argument itself.
Assign the editor-in-chief the task of turning the letter into a coherent piece with singular focus and style.
Read MoreAncillary: Role playing
Role Playing
Background: Students will engage in a roleplaying scenario based a fictional set of circumstances. Federal courts have not cited Morse in any student media cases yet, so the circumstances of this case are intended to provide a plausible example.
Instructions (read aloud or provide to students): Students will play one of the following roles in this example court case:
- The editors
- Media adviser (1)
- Judges (2-3)
- School administrators
For the sake of simplicity, the editors and school administrators will represent themselves in court. It’s imperative to remember that every role must be played to the best of students’ abilities. Playing an administrator, especially, will require the ability to play devil’s advocate and see the arguments on both sides. Playing an editor will also require the ability to play devil’s advocate; you will have to anticipate the other side’s arguments and attempt to counteract them using legal precedent and logical arguments. The judges and adviser have a responsibility to decide the case impartially, and the adviser must somehow balance his/her responsibilities to the school, to the program’s staff, and to the law.
Scenario: One of your staff members, with the blessing of the editors, writes an editorial about the economic and medicinal benefits of marijuana use. The adviser thinks the editorial is well written and logical, and the staff decides to go to print. The administration finds out in advance and censors the edition. The students sue. (Tailor the publication medium to your school)
Procedure:
Activity 1 (10 minutes): Introduce the roleplaying scenario using the Roleplaying document. Read the page and follow the directions.
Activity 2 (35 minutes): Each group must come up with arguments. During this time, the judges should review the four relevant Supreme Court cases using the Supreme Court Case Facts document in the Ancillary Materials folder. The adviser must determine a proper course of action for him/herself since the students make content decisions, not the adviser. Have students consult the SPLC’s tip sheet for student media advisers (http://www.splc.org/article/2014/08/splc-tip-sheet-for-student-media-advisers).
Activity 3 (20 minutes): The editors present their case to the judges. The administrators then defend their case, and the adviser must determine whether or not to support the students.
Activity 4 (15 minutes): Judges should deliberate in private and decide the case. They must provide justification for their answer by citing Tinker, Hazelwood, Fraser, or Morse. Whichever case they cite, Morse must be interpreted either narrowly or broadly. The judges need to explain why they interpreted Morse the way they did.
Closing (10 minutes): Discuss as a group:
- How could the staff have protected against this issue in the first place?
- Does our statement properly cover this?
Ancillary: Rubrics
Media Manual Statement
| 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | |
| Knowledge of Morse | Media statement demonstrates deep knowledge of Morse and its implications for student journalism | Media statement demonstrates knowledge of Morse and its implications for student journalism | Media statement demonstrates some knowledge of Morse and its implications for student journalism | Media statement demonstrates little knowledge of Morse and its implications for student journalism | Media statement does not demonstrate knowledge of Morse and its implications for student journalism |
| Addresses potential limitations | Media statement superbly anticipates and addresses limitations Morse could have on the program | Media statement adequately anticipates and addresses limitations Morse could have on the program | Media statement attempts to anticipate and address limitations Morse could have on the program | Media statement does not adequately anticipate or address limitations Morse could have on the program | Media statement does not anticipate or address limitations Morse could have on the program |
| Addresses circuit decisions | Media statement addresses the implications of decisions from our circuit (if applicable) | Media statement mentions decisions from our circuit but does not address their implications (if applicable) | Media statement does not mention decisions from our circuit (if applicable) | ||
| Administrator Concerns | Media statement fully anticipates and addresses potential issues with school administration and/or school board | Media statement anticipates and addresses potential issues with school administration and/or school board | Media statement somewhat anticipates and addresses potential issues with school administration and/or school board | Media statement anticipates potential issues with school administration and/or school board but does not address them | Media statement does not anticipate or address potential issues with school administration |
| Writing | Media statement demonstrates excellent grammar and mechanics | Media statement demonstrates adequate grammar and mechanics (1-2 mistakes) | Media statement’s grammar and mechanics need work (3-4 mistakes) | Media statement’s grammar and mechanics are poor (5-6 mistakes) | Media statement’s grammar and mechanics are unacceptable (7+ mistakes) |
Group Project (Broadly Interpreted Cases)
| 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | |
| Knowledge of case | Project demonstrates deep knowledge of the selected case and its implications for student journalism | Project demonstrates knowledge of the selected case and its implications for student journalism | Project demonstrates some knowledge of the selected case and its implications for student journalism | Project demonstrates little knowledge of the selected case and its implications for student journalism | Project does not demonstrate knowledge of the selected case and its implications for student journalism |
| Factors leading to a broad interpretation | Project utilizes multiple sources to list all factors that led to a broad interpretation of Morse | Project utilizes multiple sources to list multiple factors that led to a broad interpretation of Morse | Project utilizes one source to list some factors that led to a broad interpretation of Morse | Project utilizes one source to a few factors that led to a broad interpretation of Morse | Project does not address factors leading to a broad interpretation of Morse |
| Addresses potential issues | Project superbly anticipates and addresses how to avoid a similar situation | Project adequately anticipates and addresses how to avoid a similar situation | Project anticipates but does not address how to avoid a similar situation | Project does not adequately anticipate or address how to avoid a similar situation | Project does not anticipate or address how to avoid a similar situation |
| Presentation | Presentation dynamically teaches the staff about this topic in full detail | Presentation teaches the staff about this topic in full detail | Presentation teaches the staff about this topic in some detail | Presentation lacks detail | Presentation does not provide relevant details related to the case |
| Writing | Project demonstrates excellent grammar and mechanics | Project demonstrates adequate grammar and mechanics (1-2 mistakes) | Project’s grammar and mechanics need work (3-4 mistakes) | Project’s grammar and mechanics are poor (5-6 mistakes) | Project’s grammar and mechanics are unacceptable (7+ mistakes) |
Roleplaying Scenario
| 20 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 4 | |
| Portrayal of Role | Student demonstrates excellent understanding and portrays his/her role superbly | Student demonstrates solid understanding and portrays his/her role well | Student demonstrates adequate understanding and portrays his/her role adequately | Student demonstrates little understanding and portrays his/her role unconvincingly or inaccurately | Student inaccurately depicts his/her role |
| Quality | Student’s portrayal of role is backed up by quality research and sources | Student’s portrayal of role is backed up by research and sources | Student’s portrayal of role is backed up by some research and sources | Student’s portrayal of role is backed up by little research and sources | Student’s portrayal of role is not backed up by research or sources |
| 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | |
| Presentation | Presentation dynamically teaches the staff about this topic in full detail | Presentation teaches the staff about this topic in full detail | Presentation teaches the staff about this topic in some detail | Presentation lacks detail | Presentation does not provide relevant details related to the case |
Teaching Model
| 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | |
| Knowledge of subject matter | Project demonstrates deep knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism | Project demonstrates knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism | Project demonstrates some knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism | Project demonstrates little knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism | Project does not demonstrate knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism |
| Medium | Students carefully selected the best medium for accomplishing their task | Students selected an appropriate medium for accomplishing their task | Students selected a somewhat appropriate medium for accomplishing their task | Students selected a somewhat inappropriate medium for accomplishing their task | Students selected an inappropriate medium for accomplishing their task |
| Purpose | The teaching model fulfills its intended purpose superbly | The teaching model fulfills its intended purpose adequately | The teaching model somewhat fulfills its intended purpose | The teaching model does not accomplish one of its intended tasks | The teaching model does not accomplish its intended tasks |
| Audience | The teaching model has a clearly defined audience | The teaching model has an adequately defined audience | The audience is not clearly defined | The teaching model has no clear audience | The teaching model lacks an audience |
| Writing | Teaching model demonstrates excellent grammar and mechanics | Teaching model demonstrates adequate grammar and mechanics (1-2 mistakes) | Teaching model’s grammar and mechanics need work (3-4 mistakes) | Teaching model’s grammar and mechanics are poor (5-6 mistakes) | Teaching model’s grammar and mechanics are unacceptable (7+ mistakes) |
Letter
| 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | |
| Knowledge of subject matter | Letter demonstrates deep knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism | Letter demonstrates knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism | Letter demonstrates some knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism | Letter demonstrates little knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism | Letter does not demonstrate knowledge of the selected cases and their implications for student journalism |
| Purpose | The letter fulfills its intended purpose superbly | The letter fulfills its intended purpose adequately | The letter somewhat fulfills its intended purpose | The letter does not accomplish one of its intended tasks | The letter does not accomplish its intended tasks |
| Audience | The letter has a clearly defined audience | The letter has an adequately defined audience | The letter is not clearly defined | The letter has no clear audience | The letter lacks an audience |
| 20 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 4 | |
| Writing | Teaching model demonstrates excellent grammar and mechanics | Teaching model demonstrates adequate grammar and mechanics (1-2 mistakes) | Teaching model’s grammar and mechanics need work (3-4 mistakes) | Teaching model’s grammar and mechanics are poor (5-6 mistakes) | Teaching model’s grammar and mechanics are unacceptable (7+ mistakes) |
Read More