Petitioners
Hazelwood School District in St. Louis County, Missouri; various school officials; Robert Eugene Reynolds, principal of Hazelwood East High School; HowardEmerson, a teacher in the district
Respondents
Three former Hazelwood East students who were staff members of Spectrum, the school newspaper
Petitioners' Claim
That the Court should overturn a lower court decision holding that the students' First Amendment rights were violated when the principal removed two pagesfrom their school newspaper before allowing it to go to press.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Robert P. Baine, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
Leslie D. Edwards
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 January 1988
Decision
The students' rights were not violated by the removal of the two pages from their newspaper, because student newspapers published under the auspices of ajournalism class are a part of the school curriculum, rather than a "public forum."
Significance
This decision was seen as restricting students' First Amendment rights by giving school officials wide latitude to control student expression that might be seen as sponsored by the school.
The Journalism II students at Hazelwood East High School were proud of theirschool paper, Spectrum. In the 1982-1983 school year, the paper had acirculation of over 4,500, which included students, school personnel, and members of the community. According to the Curriculum Guide, Journalism II and the publishing of the paper itself was supposed to teach "the legal, moral andethical restrictions imposed on journalists within the school community" andthe "responsibility and acceptance of criticism for articles of opinion." Students worked under the supervision of a faculty member, and they received grades and credit for completing the course.
Just as the 13 May 1983 issue was about to come out, Principal Robert EugeneReynolds pulled two pages from the paper. As was usual, the faculty advisor,Howard Emerson, had shown Reynolds the paper before it came out. Reynolds wasconcerned about two articles. One described three Hazelwood East students' experiences with pregnancy. The other discussed the impact of divorce on Hazelwood students.
Privacy and the Right to Respond
Although the story about pregnancy had used false names, Reynolds believed that it might be too easy to identify the students and their boyfriends, thus violating their right to privacy. He also believed that the discussion of sexual activity and birth control in the article would not be appropriate readingmatter for the younger students at the school.
The story about divorce included a student's complaint that her father had not spent "enough time with my mom, my sister and I" before the divorce, alongwith her perception that her father "was always out of town on business or out late playing cards with the guys" and "always argued about everything" withher mother. Reynolds was upset that the student was identified by name, because he thought her parents, particularly her father, should then have been given the chance to respond to this criticism. He did not realize that the student's name had in fact been deleted from the final version of the article.
It might have been possible to fix the problems in the articles, to delay publication, or to have solved the problems in some other way, but the teacher who had run the paper all year had left to take a job in private industry, andEmerson, the new teacher, either was not aware of all the options or did notthink to mention them to the principal. So Reynolds, believing he had to actquickly, removed not just the two offending articles, but the entire page that each was on, even though he had no objection to the other articles on thetwo pages.
The students who ran the paper were furious. They claimed that their First Amendment rights to free speech and free press had been violated. They took their case to court. Eventually, their case was reviewed by the Supreme Court.
At the Schoolhouse Gate
In the famous decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court held that students in public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Justice White, writing for the majority, even cited this decision in his own ruling. Yet White ruled against the Hazelwood students, asserting that the principal had had a perfect right to pull the articles, and that, given the time pressure he was under, he had acted reasonably to delete theother articles on the same page, since he believed that was the only way that the paper could come out in time. White's opinion was very clear:
Therefore, White reasoned, a school newspaper could not be seen as the kind of public forum that, say, an empty classroom was. If a school opened its doors to the community, allowing it to rent classroom space for a public meeting,then the school should not be able to decide what was said or done at that meeting. A class held in that classroom was not a public forum, but rather a part of the school curriculum. Certainly, White thought, schools had the rightto control what was taught under their sponsorship.
White's ruling rested on the premise that the Spectrum was really partof the Journalism II class. If it had been an underground newspaper printedand circulated by students with no school involvement, it would have had a different legal standing. Indeed, White pointed out, the offending pages of theschool paper had been copied and circulated by the students, and the schoolhad taken no action. The school was not trying to control what students reador how they expressed themselves. It was simply trying to teach students howto be good journalists.
Moreover, White said, schools had the right to refuse support to student expression that did not fit the values of the school. If the principal thought that the Spectrum did not do a good job of representing Hazelwood East in the larger community--if he worried, for example, that parents might be offended at the sexual content of some of the articles or that they might not want their younger children to read about birth control--then the principal hadevery right to exercise "editorial control" over "the style and content of student speech . . . so long as his actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
A Better Civics Lesson
Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun all dissented vehemently from the Court's majority opinion. Brennan wrote the dissent, in which he argued that "school officials may censor only such student speech as would `materially disrup[t]' a legitimate curricular function." In other words, he maintained, themajority wanted to give school officials power over student speech in order to promote educational goals. The dissenters would allow school officials restrictive power only to prevent students from actively disrupting a class or other school function.
Brennan was scornful about the principal's supposed right to shield impressionable high school students from unsuitable material. Although he agreed thateducators had a right, even a duty, to supervise curriculum, he said that this was not "a general warrant to act as `thought police' stifling discussion of all but state-approved topics and advocacy of all but the official position."
Related Cases
School Paper Censorship
Do school students have the same rights of free press and speech while engaged in school activities? Can school officials control the content of school newspapers?
Students may believe the Constitution guarantees them these rights in and outof school. They may assert these rights in disagreements with school officials in connection to the publication of material in a school sponsored newspaper or in the language they use in school. Student newspaper staff members mayattempt to assert their rights to determine the editorial content of their paper, citing the rights public newspapers have to control what they do and donot publish.
Student newspapers may not be viewed in the same light as a public newspaper,since the school newspaper is not usually a vehicle for public communication. Also, a school publication is generally produced in conjunction with classwork and subsequently may be considered part of the curriculum. While school authorities cannot censor students' speech beyond school, they do have the right to ensure that students' speech and publications meet certain standards and do not conflict with the educational purposes of the school.
Sources
Cornell. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/
Hazelwood School District in St. Louis County, Missouri; various school officials; Robert Eugene Reynolds, principal of Hazelwood East High School; HowardEmerson, a teacher in the district
Respondents
Three former Hazelwood East students who were staff members of Spectrum, the school newspaper
Petitioners' Claim
That the Court should overturn a lower court decision holding that the students' First Amendment rights were violated when the principal removed two pagesfrom their school newspaper before allowing it to go to press.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Robert P. Baine, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
Leslie D. Edwards
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 January 1988
Decision
The students' rights were not violated by the removal of the two pages from their newspaper, because student newspapers published under the auspices of ajournalism class are a part of the school curriculum, rather than a "public forum."
Significance
This decision was seen as restricting students' First Amendment rights by giving school officials wide latitude to control student expression that might be seen as sponsored by the school.
The Journalism II students at Hazelwood East High School were proud of theirschool paper, Spectrum. In the 1982-1983 school year, the paper had acirculation of over 4,500, which included students, school personnel, and members of the community. According to the Curriculum Guide, Journalism II and the publishing of the paper itself was supposed to teach "the legal, moral andethical restrictions imposed on journalists within the school community" andthe "responsibility and acceptance of criticism for articles of opinion." Students worked under the supervision of a faculty member, and they received grades and credit for completing the course.
Just as the 13 May 1983 issue was about to come out, Principal Robert EugeneReynolds pulled two pages from the paper. As was usual, the faculty advisor,Howard Emerson, had shown Reynolds the paper before it came out. Reynolds wasconcerned about two articles. One described three Hazelwood East students' experiences with pregnancy. The other discussed the impact of divorce on Hazelwood students.
Privacy and the Right to Respond
Although the story about pregnancy had used false names, Reynolds believed that it might be too easy to identify the students and their boyfriends, thus violating their right to privacy. He also believed that the discussion of sexual activity and birth control in the article would not be appropriate readingmatter for the younger students at the school.
The story about divorce included a student's complaint that her father had not spent "enough time with my mom, my sister and I" before the divorce, alongwith her perception that her father "was always out of town on business or out late playing cards with the guys" and "always argued about everything" withher mother. Reynolds was upset that the student was identified by name, because he thought her parents, particularly her father, should then have been given the chance to respond to this criticism. He did not realize that the student's name had in fact been deleted from the final version of the article.
It might have been possible to fix the problems in the articles, to delay publication, or to have solved the problems in some other way, but the teacher who had run the paper all year had left to take a job in private industry, andEmerson, the new teacher, either was not aware of all the options or did notthink to mention them to the principal. So Reynolds, believing he had to actquickly, removed not just the two offending articles, but the entire page that each was on, even though he had no objection to the other articles on thetwo pages.
The students who ran the paper were furious. They claimed that their First Amendment rights to free speech and free press had been violated. They took their case to court. Eventually, their case was reviewed by the Supreme Court.
At the Schoolhouse Gate
In the famous decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court held that students in public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Justice White, writing for the majority, even cited this decision in his own ruling. Yet White ruled against the Hazelwood students, asserting that the principal had had a perfect right to pull the articles, and that, given the time pressure he was under, he had acted reasonably to delete theother articles on the same page, since he believed that was the only way that the paper could come out in time. White's opinion was very clear:
First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.
Therefore, White reasoned, a school newspaper could not be seen as the kind of public forum that, say, an empty classroom was. If a school opened its doors to the community, allowing it to rent classroom space for a public meeting,then the school should not be able to decide what was said or done at that meeting. A class held in that classroom was not a public forum, but rather a part of the school curriculum. Certainly, White thought, schools had the rightto control what was taught under their sponsorship.
White's ruling rested on the premise that the Spectrum was really partof the Journalism II class. If it had been an underground newspaper printedand circulated by students with no school involvement, it would have had a different legal standing. Indeed, White pointed out, the offending pages of theschool paper had been copied and circulated by the students, and the schoolhad taken no action. The school was not trying to control what students reador how they expressed themselves. It was simply trying to teach students howto be good journalists.
Moreover, White said, schools had the right to refuse support to student expression that did not fit the values of the school. If the principal thought that the Spectrum did not do a good job of representing Hazelwood East in the larger community--if he worried, for example, that parents might be offended at the sexual content of some of the articles or that they might not want their younger children to read about birth control--then the principal hadevery right to exercise "editorial control" over "the style and content of student speech . . . so long as his actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
A Better Civics Lesson
Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun all dissented vehemently from the Court's majority opinion. Brennan wrote the dissent, in which he argued that "school officials may censor only such student speech as would `materially disrup[t]' a legitimate curricular function." In other words, he maintained, themajority wanted to give school officials power over student speech in order to promote educational goals. The dissenters would allow school officials restrictive power only to prevent students from actively disrupting a class or other school function.
Brennan was scornful about the principal's supposed right to shield impressionable high school students from unsuitable material. Although he agreed thateducators had a right, even a duty, to supervise curriculum, he said that this was not "a general warrant to act as `thought police' stifling discussion of all but state-approved topics and advocacy of all but the official position."
Related Cases
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
- Grayed v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).
- Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women's Voters, 468U.S. 364 (1984).
- Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
School Paper Censorship
Do school students have the same rights of free press and speech while engaged in school activities? Can school officials control the content of school newspapers?
Students may believe the Constitution guarantees them these rights in and outof school. They may assert these rights in disagreements with school officials in connection to the publication of material in a school sponsored newspaper or in the language they use in school. Student newspaper staff members mayattempt to assert their rights to determine the editorial content of their paper, citing the rights public newspapers have to control what they do and donot publish.
Student newspapers may not be viewed in the same light as a public newspaper,since the school newspaper is not usually a vehicle for public communication. Also, a school publication is generally produced in conjunction with classwork and subsequently may be considered part of the curriculum. While school authorities cannot censor students' speech beyond school, they do have the right to ensure that students' speech and publications meet certain standards and do not conflict with the educational purposes of the school.
Sources
Cornell. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/
User Comments Add a comment…