Today, political topics seem impossible to avoid. Whether it’s conversations about presidential elections, Supreme Court decisions, or movements like Black Lives Matter or March for Our Lives, politics often ends up in schools, regardless of whether teachers or administrators welcome it or not.
But when politics enters the classroom or student newspapers, should students be allowed to express their opinions?
The short answer: yes, but it’s complicated.
At my school, political conversations are relatively common. It’s a predominantly Democrat-leaning community, and many teachers actively encourage conversations about current events and social justice issues. Students speak openly about topics like abortion rights, climate policy, and racial equity. There’s a shared understanding of what most people believe, and that can unintentionally make it harder for students with differing views to feel comfortable speaking up.
That tension isn’t new, and neither is the debate.
In 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, including siblings John and Mary Beth Tinker, decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War in silence. School administrators, fearing that the protest would disrupt the school community, preemptively announced a policy banning the armbands. When the Tinker siblings and a few other students wore them despite the newly ordered policy, they were suspended. Their parents filed a lawsuit, arguing that the school had violated their children’s First Amendment rights. The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) that the students’ silent protest was considered protected speech under the First Amendment. In a landmark 7–2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the students.
As Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote in the majority opinion: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
The Tinker case made a powerful statement: students do have constitutional rights. You don’t stop being a person with a voice simply because you walk into a school building. The Court made it clear that as long as student speech doesn’t disrupt learning, it’s protected by the First Amendment.
But things changed with Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). In that case, student journalists wrote about divorce and teen pregnancy for their school newspaper. The principal removed the articles without telling them, saying the topics weren’t appropriate. The students sued, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Because the newspaper was part of a class, the Court said the school had the right to decide what could be published.
Justice Byron White wrote: “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission.”
The decision drew a sharp line between personal student speech (like wearing an armband) and school-sponsored platforms (like newspapers or broadcasts).
Practically, this means that schools walk a thin line between encouraging dialogue and trying to avoid conflict. And students are left in the middle, wondering if they are allowed to speak up, if they’ll get in trouble, and whether it’s worth speaking up.
Schools are where most of us learn to form opinions and express ourselves. If we don’t practice that while we’re here, there are as many places to exercise our rights.
But we also need to ask ourselves what the goal of speech in school is. Is it to educate? To express? To influence?
I spoke with Dr. Angela Davis, who was recently recognized as the 100th person to earn a Ph.D. in physics from Alabama A&M University because she utilized academic spaces to advocate for equity in education. As an undergraduate, she once gave a talk on access to STEM education and faced backlash for “bringing politics into science.” But as she put it, “Science doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Who gets to learn, who gets funded, those are political decisions.” That experience only pushed her to speak out more: “It made me more determined to use my voice, especially for those who feel unseen in these spaces.”
She said it’s about having conversations at any level, local, state, or national. But when it comes to sharing her views in academic settings, she’s careful. “I absolutely do not just walk in the door voicing my political opinions,” she said. She explained that while students might bring up politics in class, especially around elections, she tends to redirect the conversation to avoid misinterpretation.
“I think it has its place, but the type of classroom matters,” she explained. In subjects like political science or African American studies, political conversations naturally fit. But in her field, physics, it can be risky. A statement taken out of context could be misunderstood, recorded, or shared online. “I never want to be in a situation where I’m losing a job because someone got offended,” she said.
When I asked if students understand their free speech rights, she didn’t hesitate: “I think students understand them to the thousandth degree.” She said many students are very vocal, sometimes sharing their perceived rights even when they don’t fully understand the laws.
To help schools balance discipline with student activism, Dr. Davis suggested structured forums, such as debates or Q&A panels, where students can safely share their political opinions. “That way, students still get an opportunity to voice their opinions, and it’s done in a respectful, controlled environment.”
Finally, when I asked what she would change about the rules governing political speech in schools, she shifted the focus toward values. “One of the biggest problems in today’s society is the lack of general respect and empathy,” she said. Whether or not the rules change, she believes students must learn to express their views with empathy even when those views come more from home than from their personal experiences.
Hearing Dr. Davis’s answers gave me a lot to think about. At first, I was surprised by how cautious she is when sharing her views, but I understand why she’s considering the risks and trying to protect both herself and her students. I don’t wholly agree with avoiding those conversations, though. I think sometimes students need to hear different perspectives, even in subjects like science, as long as it’s respectful. However, I appreciated how she emphasized the importance of creating safe spaces for student voices and the value of empathy.
It was also important to include teen voices in this project because students are the ones directly experiencing these situations every day. Adults can set rules and policies, but it’s teens who have to navigate the challenges of speaking up in classrooms, dealing with peer reactions, and balancing personal beliefs with school culture.
To hear directly from students, a few questions were asked to some teens to share their experiences and opinions. They were asked what makes a classroom feel safe or unsafe for political discussions, how teachers can best guide tough conversations, how conflicts during political talks have been handled, and whether there’s a difference between discussing politics versus human rights or social justice in schools.
One student stated that “Politics are heavily censored in my school … I feel like this creates a gap in between teachers and students and students from the real world because, if we do not know what is happening in our government, we will not be able to prepare properly for it. So I feel as if it is a major issue and should be addressed.”
Another said, “ I feel like since we’re not allowed to talk about politics in my school, it really helps to not create as much division and how your ideas and ideals in life, and really focusing on your character and how you act towards people, and like kindness, than just politics.” The last student said, “ I think that teachers can best facilitate the topics of discussion of politics and things by just making the environment comfortable and making sure that each student is heard and that their opinions won’t make them feel dictated or judged …”
Political speech in schools isn’t an easy topic whatsoever. On one hand, open discussions help students learn to think critically and consider different perspectives. On the other hand, these conversations can quickly become tense or divisive. However, if schools avoid these topics entirely, are they teaching us students to have engaging conversations or simply to avoid potential conflict?
Perhaps the real question isn’t whether political speech belongs in schools, but whether teachers and administrators trust students to engage in complex conversations with respect and maturity.
