determine whether a public school regulation that curtailed expression was reasonable: [S]chool officials cannot ignore expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend. They cannot infringe on their students’ right to free and unrestricted expression as guaranteed to them under the First Amendment to the Constitution, where the exercise of such rights in the school buildings and schoolrooms do[es] not materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. 363 F.2d at 749. Under the Burnside standard, student expression may unquestionably be regulated when doing so “contributes to the maintenance of order and decorum within the educational system.” Id. at 748; accord Tinker, 393 U.S. at 514, 89 .S.Ct. at 740 (<HOLDING>); Shanley, 462 F.2d at 969 (“The test for
holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that a teacher was unjustified in censoring an article in the school newspaper because it was inconceivable that the use of the word damn one time in the article would have caused material and substantial interference with school activities holding that a school may not prohibit expressive activity unless there are facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement