 He described the rule in "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District", as "that there is a right to political speech subject to disruption—that the speech not be disruptive".He defined the disruptiveness in general terms as behavior inimical to the educational mission of the school, and in specific terms as a violation of the school's announced policy to enforce and support laws with respect to the control of marijuana (and other laws in general).Starr also cited the cases of "Bethel School District v. Fraser", and "Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier", .