This allowance that has been granted to school authorities since 1988 when the decision was made on the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case, will inevitably bring about skeptical beliefs of the accused. Since the school authorities have this power, they can ultimately decide who and/or what is to be allowed or denied the right to exist or be expressed in school. There may be a case where an authority has a bad relationship with a student or organization. When the question arises on whether there should be permission for whatever the student or organization is trying to express, the authority can just say no, and there is nothing else that can be done since this rule of power was granted by the "supreme law of the land" fifteen years ago. This scenario works in the direct opposite as well as in dealing with allowing instead of denying. .
According to Perry A. Zikel author of A Digest of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Education, he informs the reader that in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court also stated in another way "[ ] that a school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission if the speech is sponsored by the school or is part of the school curriculum (81). However put, the Supreme Court is viewing the issue as a moral concern that students be protected if there is harm that could occur to students or the learning process [education] due to the expressed information. Generally, individuals in our society express themselves in a variety of ways everyday. Some of these ways may be through written word, pictures and drawings, gestures, symbols, or by just talking. Given a particular situation, one or a combination of these means might prove more effective than the others in making an individual's feelings, beliefs, or whishes known to others. Do these everyday procedures of communication fall under "special context for the First Amendment?" If so, the amount of people and things that can be affected is immense.
