The concept of student expression as a whole interests me, both as a current event in 2025 and how civilian and military laws compare.

Prince, T. (2023, December 29). Forging a Foundation: Basic Military Training [Review of Forging a Foundation: Basic Military Training]. Airmen Magazine; U.S. Air Force. https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/AETC-Features/Article/3632515/forging-a-foundation-basic-military-training/

While there is not a state governing body, the subordinate Department of the Air Force serves as a proxy to a state governing authority, which creates its own specific rules but is beholden to the greater federal executive authority.

In comparison, in the civilian sector, the federal governing body for education is the cabinet level Department of Education, which is ultimately responsible for providing guidance to state-level

Must include a summary of the governing agency, at the federal and state level, in your field of practice with practical expertise related to the Guide topic. The summary should include what you learned about governing bodies and accountability at the federal and state level.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

U.S. Const. Amend. I

This protection of expression is mirrored by the Texas State Constitution, which protects "“liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject.”

Tex. Const. art. I, § 8

It must be noted, however, that protection of speech is not absolute, especially when speech harms the rights of others.

In terms of educational institutions, speech is not protected if it disrupts the normal operation of the school. This will be addressed in slide

The UCMJ is divided into articles, which function similarly to state statutes. Even in a military training environment, military students are beholden to those articles.

The two UCMJ articles which address expression are articles 88 and 134.

Article 88 specifically applies only to commissioned officers and primarily restricts them from using "contemptuous" language to high-level elected officials (President, VP, Governers, etc) and is generally not applicable in the educational environment. (UCMJ §888. Art. 88. Contempt toward officials).

Article 134, called the general article, is broader and applies to any action that is "prejudicial to good order and discipline" or "brings discredit upon the armed forces". (UCMJ §934. Art. 134. General article). This allows even instructors to disallow expression if it affects activities other than education, such as disrespecting service members of a higher rank, damages unit morale, or attempts to persuade other service members to be disloyal.

There is at least some similarity in Texas State law. The Texas Educational Code

Of course military service members are subject to additional rules of the UCMJ, but the Tinker ruling provides context to an educational environment. For students to learn effectively, they must be able to express themselves within a set of reasonable boundaries. If those boundaries are too constrained, they may impede effective education.

In the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could specifically prohibit and limit.

When delivering the ruling, Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the supposed sexual content of a student's graphical sexual metaphor at an assembly. Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."

(Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser is 478 U.S. 675 (1986))

This is mirrored in the UCMJ's article 134 requiring service members to avoid making public statements (such as vulgar or lewd remarks) that could bring discredit to the military services.

Military students, on the other hand, are bound my military rules. The local Goodfellow Air Force Base 17th Training Wing Student Handbook establishes the following in terms of personal appearance:

"As per AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel, Paragraph 1.1.2., “Pride in one’s personal appearance and wearing the uniform, greatly enhances the esprit de corps essential to an effective military force. Therefore, it is critical for all Airmen to maintain a high standard of dress and personal appearance. The five elements of this standard are neatness, cleanliness, safety, uniformity, and military image.” In addition, AFI 36-2903 states what you can and cannot do to your body as a member of the USAF; active duty, USAFR members on active duty or inactive duty for training and ANG members in Federal service. This includes tattooing, branding, or other body markings. Failure to observe these mandatory provisions and prohibitions is a violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). All Airmen are authorized to wear squadron approved morale shirts on Fridays when Uniform of the Day (UOD) is Airmen Battle Uniforms (ABUs). Airmen in BTP that travel in small marching units (SMUs) are not required to have matching undershirts."

(17th Training Wing Student Handbook)

Unlike traditional civilian students, military student appearance is carefully constrained. Members are required to wear certain clothing (uniforms) and must abide by particular rules for tattoos and the wear of earrings.

These guidelines can be set in a welcome packet as well as in the introductory unit of a course. Having the student participate in establishing guidelines can create buy-in, increasing their effectiveness.

A second management strategy is to incorporate critical thinking techniques combined with media literacy into courseware. Being able to critically analyze the impact of communication can assist students comprehend the rationale behind tempering their own expression.

A third technique for risk management is to have a clearly established set of internal guidance for responding to conflicts within the educational environment. In a military setting with a large percentage of servicemembers with under one year of service, having established expectations for "teaching moments" instead of administrative punishment is valuable for helping new servicemembers align with military patterns of behavior.

The first items of the first principle of "Commitment to the Student", the code directs that educators "shall not unreasonably restrain the student from independent action in the pursuit of learning."

My interpretation is that an element of independent action in the pursuit of learning is expression. In the military classroom, this generally means spoken opinions or writing.

Providing students space (within boundaries) for expression is an ethical imperative.

https://www.nea.org/resource-library/code-ethics-educators

Within the state of Texas' Administrative code, the Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators contains the requirement that "The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor."

(19 TAC §247.2)

Ethically, this means understanding the boundaries and limitations of student expression and treated conflicts with respect and truthfulness.

https://texas-sos.appianportalsgov.com/rules-and-meetings?$locale=en_US&interface=VIEW_TAC_SUMMARY&queryAsDate=05%2F15%2F2025&recordId=192646

This course widened the scope of my understanding of the sources of law, providing a practical understanding of how local regulations come from statues, which themselves are rooted in the U.S. Constitution.

I had not previously connected how the rule of law directly contributed to fairness, accountability, and positive learning outcomes in an educational environment.

In terms of how the law connects to my own educational journey, I was surprised to see that a legal and ethics course was part of this educational program. My primary focus is on the "nuts and bolts" or instructional design and curriculum development. Connecting the law to the regulations that govern educational institutions has reinforced my belief that educational environments must be grounded in ethical guidelines that foster respect for all learners. This course has motivated me to seek a deeper understanding of what regulations truly support ethical considerations.