While researching the topic of freedom of the press, I came across an interesting case involving the press rights of high school newspapers- specifically, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. The case, which was decided in 1988, involved a public high school newspaper (produced as part of a journalism class) in St. Louis. Prior review was granted to the principal to look over articles before they were published by the school district. In this case, however, the principal denied approval of two articles: one, a look at divorce and its effects on high school children, and another, an article written to discuss teenage pregnancy as a growing trend, specifically within the school district itself. Both articles were cut. The principal decided the divorce article did not show all sides of the issue, and the pregnancy article was apparently too mature for a young audience. The Supreme Court upheld the principal’s decision in a 5-3 vote, reversing the ruling of a lower court. The Supreme Court stated: “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission.”
Firstly, it’s arguable whether the pregnancy article was actually against the school district’s educational mission. The principal’s main issue with it was that it was too mature for freshman students. Sexual education classes, however, are currently held in high schools today often in either 9th or 10th grade. If class material is suitable for these students, it seems contradictory to state that a well-written piece with interviews from students (some of whom were even already married) would be outside the realm of maturity for a 15-year-old. Because the school district took it upon itself to recognize a need for sexual education and family living courses, it obviously considers the information valuable and necessary among young audiences. The newspaper article clearly furthered this mission by providing more information and anecdotal evidence for teenage pregnancy cases that were occurring within the very halls of these schools, making the issue more relevant to students than a standard textbook.
Also, the principal’s concern about the divorce article could have been solved if the principal had allowed the student to go back and fill in missing sources in the article. If the principal is to be granted power of prior restraint for the newspaper, the lack of time to fix any necessary changes for publication seems contrary to the cause of accurate journalism. If the publication does not have time to consider and fix any mistakes or issues the principal finds, it seems as though the prior restraint is clearly and only a form of censorship by the school district on the writings of students.
Although some may argue that because the school district was paying for the newspaper’s publication and therefore has any and all rights to alter the information within, the Supreme Court should have recognized the necessity of free speech among students. During the case, Kuhlmeier’s legal team cited the previous ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines School District. The Tinker case established that school officials should not censor student speech “unless they could reasonably forecast that the student speech in question would cause a substantial disruption of school activities or invade the rights of others.” (Hudson). I fail to see how a substantial disruption would occur from these articles, especially the pregnancy article, of which students most likely already knew was an issue. Unfortuntately, the Tinker standard was not applied, and the Court ruled that candid discussion about teenage pregnancy was too much for young students to handle.
In conclusion, I would like to cite Justice William Brennan’s dissenting opinion on the case (that was joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun):
“Tinker teaches us that the state educator's undeniable, and undeniably vital, mandate to inculcate moral and political values is not a general warrant to act as ‘thought police’ stifling discussion of all but state-approved topics and advocacy of the official position...The mere fact of school sponsorship does not, as the Court suggests, license such thought control in the high school, whether through school suppression of disfavored viewpoints or through official assessment of topic sensitivity.”Clearly, high school students are often discredited as being too immature to take on issues that directly impact them. As Justice Brennan states, it is imperative for schools to work against this disturbing trend and recognize the need for open discussion and a free marketplace of ideas, even in a high school setting.
Sources:
