Does the California Education Regulator have sufficient evidence to support their findings that the California Board of Education is likely to impose restrictions on free speech in schools?

Therefore, even if the findings be given their widest interpretation they are insufficient as a matter of law. Defendants have failed to demonstrate the existence of 'facts which might reasonably have led (them) to forecast Substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities' (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Sch. Dist., Supra, 393 U.S. 503, 514, 89 S.Ct. 733, 740, 21 L.Ed.2d 731, italics added) as a result of plaintiffs' proposed activity. ¹² Rather, defendants have shown only that they reasonably apprehended[71 Cal.2d 564] the sort of unrest which inevitably results from the expression of controversial views but which must be tolerated in the schools as well as in society generally. In addition, they have produced speculative opinion testimony ¹³ suggesting at most that plaintiffs' proposed activity may produce insubstantial and immaterial interruptions and disturbances of teachers working in lunchrooms and faculty rooms. ¹⁴ It is clear that this minor threat can be eliminated by regulations far less inimical to First Amendment rights than the regulations challenged herein.

Similarly, defendants have failed to demonstrate that a significant threat to the 'efficiency and integrity of the public service' (Fort v. Civil Service Commission, supra, 61 Cal.2d 331, 338, 38 Cal.Rptr. 625, 629, 392 P.2d 385, 389) is posed by plaintiffs' proposed activity.