Harper

facts which might reasonably [lead] school authorities to forecast substantial

disruption.” Id. at 514. While we do not require school officials to be certain that

disruption will occur, see LaVine v. Blaine Sch. Dist., 257 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir.

2001), they must present “evidence that [the ban] is necessary to avoid material

and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at

511 (emphasis added).

The school authorities here have shown precious little to support an

inference that Harper’s t-shirt would “materially disrupt[] classwork.” One

teacher, David LeMaster, said that several students in class were “off-task talking

1 (...continued) speech when they attended an assembly designed to debate the merits of candidates for student political office? Perhaps Fraser is best read as dealing with the situation where the school sponsors the activity in question and invites or encourages students to attend. By giving its imprimatur to the activity, the school is, in effect, assuring potential attendees that they will not be subjected to anything plainly offensive. So read, Fraser is merely a precursor to Hazelwood, and has no application at all to…