In my opinion, the rights of a student or a group of students,to peacefully handout literature emphasizing one's political and social views should not be infringed upon by an educational establishment as was the case in Scenario 2. Furthermore, the decision on part of the educational establishment, was compelled by the objections raised by one student, who deemed the nature of the pamphlet as hostile and misleading thus creating an unfair and unsafe environment. In respecting and favouring the discontent of one individual, the college was upholding a biased approach toward the discontent of other students who felt the need to peacefully communicate their views. .
I can understand the apprehension of the educational administration that influenced their decision. An educational institution wishes to maintain a peaceful and fair environment that neither inhibits nor inculcates ethnic or religious disparity. Yet, in this case, the college made a hasty and unethical decision that violated the First Amendment Rights of the "silent protestors". Also I am unclear as to whether the institution was a private or a public school, which would be an influencing factor in determining the justifiability of the college's decision. Thus the nature of my argument is in context to a Public institution.
In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a school's principle, who censored two pages of a school regulated newspaper that addressed the issues of student pregnancy and divorce. The principle defended his actions by claiming to protect the privacy of pregnant students in the school. The courts deciosion was based on the fact that the article was narrowly pinpointed toward a handful of students and additionally and more importantly, that the newspaper was a supervised student activity. The Court cautioned, however, that this authority does not justify an educator's attempt "to silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises.