The Tinker decision demonstrated that students who opposed the Vietnam War had the right to express their view in a school setting. The Tinker, Fraser, and Hazelwood cases represent an evolution in constitutional common law. Fraser and Hazelwood can be seen as modifications rather than reversals of the original Tinker doctrine. However, courts do not and should not have comprehensive responsibility for resolving school-based values clashes. Hazelwood left the decision to impose some kind of authority or censorship on school newspapers open to school administrators. The reconciliation of the values of autonomy and authority has to come at the community level; the role of the courts is to clarify national values on a broad scale. After clarifying these values, a judge should establish a remedial process that brings together a representative group of people from the affected community. A special master, a facilitator, or some representative of the court should function as a liaison between the community and the court to ensure a proper dialogue and make decisions. The court would have jurisdiction to ensure implementation and determine the need for modification. This approach would allow the broader community to resolve issues in a manner that the school board could not have done in its original form. Footnotes