Destiny Hagenow
EDCO 280
Buena Vista University
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Summary of Case
Hazelwood East High School students enrolled in the Journalism II class were responsible for writing and editing the school's paper The Spectrum. Two of the articles submitted for publication in the final edition of the paper contained stories on divorce and teenage pregnancy. The divorce article featured a story about a girl who blamed her father's actions for her parents' divorce. The teenage pregnancy article featured stories in which pregnant students at Hazelwood East shared their experiences. To ensure their privacy, the girls' names were changed in the article (US Courts).
However, the school principal felt that the subjects of these two articles were inappropriate. He decided that journalistic fairness required that the father in the divorce article be informed of the story and be given an opportunity to comment. He also stated his concerns that simply changing the names of the girls in the teenage pregnancy article may not be enough to protect their anonymity and that this topic may not be suitable for the younger students. As a result, he prohibited these articles from being published in the paper (US Courts).
Because there was no time to edit the paper if it were to go to press before the end of the school year, entire pages were eliminated. The student journalists then brought suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech had been violated (US Courts). Just because the articles dealt with controversial topics is not sufficient reason for school authorities to censor them. If school administrators are preparing students to be responsible citizens, then students must be able to investigate and comment on the Bill of Rights and other academic topics using their student newspaper. Because the school ban was clearly based on the content of the articles, it violated the students’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech (Click).
By establishing a student newspaper and putting students in charge of it, the school waived control of the content and responsibility for it. The student newspaper is clearly identified as a forum for student thought and opinion, not official school policies. If the school decides that certain articles do not reflect school policies and positions, it can post a disclaimer on the publication making clear that the administration is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily agree with, the content of student articles. Schools clearly violate students’ free speech rights when they disallow certain content on their student newspaper (Click). Does the decision of a principal to prohibit the publishing of certain articles, which he considers inappropriate, in the school newspaper violate the student journalists' First Amendment right of freedom of speech?
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the principal's actions did not violate the students' free speech rights. “The Court noted that the paper was sponsored by the school and, as such, the school had a legitimate interest in preventing the publication of articles that it considered inappropriate.” (US Courts) The Court noted that the paper was not intended as a public forum in which everyone could share views; rather, it was a limited forum for journalism students to write articles for the requirements of their Journalism II class, and subject to appropriate editing by the school.
Impact on Education
Many believe that the Kuhlmeier decision limited free expression in school writing, because schools will now want to censor their student publications (Click). For students who want to write for the school paper, the Kuhlmeier decision puts them in a tough spot. They can either stay with the school-sponsored publication or found a non-official, “underground” publication. The student who stays with the official publication will continue to gain school credit and will have access to the experienced journalism advisor, which would be great experience for a later career in journalism. However, they will be sacrificing their editorial freedom. The student who joins an unofficial publication will have complete editorial freedom, because school control is limited to the ability of the school to intercept the publication before it reaches the populace of the school. However, this student will be sacrificing academic credit and educational input (Abrams).
The Court found this issue relevant not only to Spectrum, but to all “school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.” (Abrams)
In footnote 7 of Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court limited the case’s impact to the high school level. Therefore, student publications at colleges and universities cannot cite Kuhlmeier in order to censor their official student publications. Higher education institutions have to find other ways to add censorship to their school-sponsored publications (Abrams).
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The Hazelwood school board policies had stated that “students are entitled to express in writing their personal opinions,” and that “school sponsored publications will not restrict free expression or diverse viewpoints within the rules of responsible journalism.” Therefore, many still do not believe that the students broke any school policies. Opponents believe that this case has a lot in common with Des Moines v. Tinker. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district, noting that while the Tinker decision granted students first amendment rights that did not stop at the school door, their rights were not “coextensive with those of adults.” (Abrams) The Supreme Court distinguished that Tinker was conducted outside of official school programs, while Kuhlmeier was conduct occurred within the context of a school-sponsored program. Spectrum is within Hazelwood’s journalism course as a requirement, not a public forum for free expression for students (Abrams).
There are limits to free speech within a public school. While the government cannot prohibit speech based upon content under most circumstances, public school authorities must be given more leeway to restrict speech in order to run a school efficiently and maintain a learning environment. Among other factors, school authorities must consider whether particular speech will disrupt the learning environment. The state, including public school administrators, has always had authority to limit speech in certain situations. When school authorities control access to the activity, they may limit the content of speech to what they consider appropriate.
I think this case can even include school-sponsored social media, like a school Facebook page. The school retains ultimate responsibility for all content on its official Facebook page. The page communicates the school’s image, values, reputation, and position in the community. The purpose of the page, as stated on the site, is to be the official communication vehicle of the school. Therefore, any postings – regardless of the author – can be attributed to the school, and school officials can be held accountable for them. The school retains the right and the duty to control the content of its Facebook fan page to ensure that the school is not portrayed as promoting or endorsing inappropriate messages and activities. The administration must never lose sight of its responsibility to maintain a safe and efficient learning environment.
I think a wise decision was made on the case. A school-sponsored newspaper must be deemed appropriate by the school district, because the publication is a representation of their school. Also, all students would have the ability to read this publication. Older and younger students would be able to read whatever the student’s had written. The school is then protecting the other students. Therefore, I think the principal had the right to change or delete whatever he deemed inappropriate.
With the expansion of the internet, there have been significant changes and situations that would not have been imagined in 1987. Technology is constantly changing, and there are new ways for students to publicly voice their opinions. It’s important for me as a teacher to remember Kuhlmeier, and to think ethically when I’m in the classroom. I need to be extra careful about what I allow to be said under the school’s name.
A majority of the newspapers in the United States are student newspapers, and a majority of journalists in the United States are student journalists (Abrams). Free speech has been a hot button issue in the United States recently, and I think it will continue to be an ethical argument for years to come. Will these students be able to learn journalism skills in an environment with censorship? As long as students continue to stand up for what they believe in and speak out on issues that they know their readers face, then I think we are in good hands.
References
Abrams, J. M., & Goodman, S. M. (1988). End of an Era? The Decline of Student Press Rights
in the Wake of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. Duke Law Journal, 1988(4),
706-732. doi:10.2307/1372571
ERIC - Opinions of Principals and Newspaper Advisers toward Student Press Freedom and
Advisers' Responsibilities following Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier., 1990-Aug. (1990).
Retrieved September 23, 2016, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED323536
Facts and Case Summary - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2016, from
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-sum
mary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier
No comments:
Post a Comment