Courts in the United States repeatedly claim that students retain constitutional protections while in school, but legal doctrine increasingly gives administrators expansive discretion to engage in censorship and searches. This project focuses on the balance between student expression and administrative authority, highlighting that the Court has legalized administrative discretion by reframing schools as engaging in ‘managerial control’ or control in pursuit of a pedagogical goal. Drawing on the work of Robert Post, I explain how schools are in the business of controlling speech and expression while also acknowledging that Post empirically and structurally misrepresents the role of ‘public discourse,’ or politically important speech, in schools. Post’s domain theory treats schools as places of professionalism insulated from politically important speech, which, importantly, would justify the exclusion of First Amendment protections in schools. I, however, argue that schools inherently teach students to engage in public discourse by utilizing debate programs, civics curricula, student government, and classroom discussion of politics. Furthermore, because I argue students do engage in public discourse, I also argue relevant First Amendment protections should be applied. By interrogating Post’s argument about managerial control, we can determine whether the courts are justified in lending so much discretion to school officials or whether they have gone too far.