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:
Hmmm, what an interesting story. I had no idea that a high school journalism assignment could -- and did -- reach the Supreme Court. I suppose I am torn on this topic. I can see both sides. I understand the principal's (and the Supreme Court's stance on both of these controversial topics; however, if we truly have freedom of speech, then I can see the other side, too.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a nasty case of prior restraint that would make most journalists cringe. Evidently, these high school students managed to put together a few articles that got people talking, to say the least. As long as the articles were tasteful and well written, I see no problem with their publication. If the principal had a strong issue with them, he/she could have told the students what to fix, and then published the finished copy. High school students are not children -- I believe they can handle this sensitive material. In college, there is no censorship, and as we all know, college comes right after high school.
Kristy,
ReplyDeleteI know I wasn't required to comment on your post, but I found it fascinating. I studied both Hazelwood and Tinker in my high school journalism class. Of course, back then I thought we should be able to write about any and everything we wanted. In fact, I wrote a column senior year and I tackled specifically controversial issues, probably because I just liked pushing the envelope LOL! I wrote about Planned Parenthood and teenage pregnancy in one article and I know that stirred up some controversy at my school. So I look back now and I am grateful for not being censored in any of my articles.
I also want to bring up Naperville Central High School. They had a phenomenal paper each month and our staff really did look up to theirs! Their ideas were fresh and their graphics were beyond creative. One month their center spread addressed marijuana and specifically some students (who remained anonymous in the stories) from Central that smoked. Linda Kane, the paper's advisor, was an awesome teacher who had a passion for journalism and teaching--she was fired over the spread. The incident is still talked about and if you know anyone from Naperville Central, they will tell you what a huge controversy it turned into.
I think it is really unfortunate that Linda was fired over that center spread. The articles did not advocate either way; they presented the facts on both sides of the issue. I think it is sad what happened there. Students are journalists too and they should be able to cover even the most serious of topics out there. Kids have to grow up sometime.
-Toni
I'm so happy with how progressive cases like Tinker have been, but it's really frustrating to read about a case such as Hazelwood. I like the precedent that Tinker established, and I know that a lot of students who have worked at high school papers are grateful for it. I haven't worked at a paper that required prior review by a professor or principal since my high school days (and even then, we honestly weren't that good and never really published anything controversial).
ReplyDeleteBut what's troubling are all of the cases that have come afterward limiting the strides that Tinker made. Not just Hazelwood, but Bethel School District v. Fraser as well that limited a student's "indecent," sexual innuendo-laden speech. Later the Supreme Court limited student speech at school-sponsored events in Morse v. Frederick, specifically referencing student speech that promoted or addressed illegal drugs.
I feel like this is a case of adults viewing students as far more immature or unruly than they actually are. In many of these cases — especially from the Supreme Court cases we discussed here — it seems like the students at least made a decent effort to understand the topics at hand and address really important issues in a professional manner. I agree that it would have made more sense for the principal to at least advise the students on cleaning the articles up and presenting both sides instead of just shutting them down altogether. How does that promote discussion or intelligent debate?
-jill