Missouri teachers reflect on Hazelwood decision which allowed

Daily Record and the Kansas City Daily News-Press, Oct 6, 2008 by Angela Riley

It's not every day that a U.S. Supreme Court decision arising out of your own backyard has resounding implications 20 years later.

Today marks the start of the new Supreme Court session, and this year is the 20th anniversary of that court's decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. In the decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right for public high school administrators to censor school-sponsored publications for a legitimate educational justifica- tion.

The subject of the two articles that were censored in Hazelwood East High School's newspaper -- teen pregnancy and divorce -- were and are hot-button issues, but the administration says they stopped the publication, not solely because of the sensitive nature of the topics.

Hazelwood's principal objected to the story concerning teen pregnancy because the pregnant students, although not named, might be identified from the text, violat-ing their right to privacy. The principal also believed that the article's references to sexual activity were inappropriate for some of the younger students.

The other article in question was about parents divorcing. In it, a student had complained of her father's conduct. The principal believed that the student's parents should have been given an opportunity to respond and removed it as well.

The court's 5-3 opinion in Hazelwood doesn't allow for all student publications to be censored. If a student publication is considered to be a public forum, it is protected by the First Amendment. A newspaper can be considered to be a public forum if there is a written policy giving the students the right to publish without interfer-ence, the school has a history of being public forum and if historically administrators have not used their right to censor publications or have not exercised review prior to publication. Also, since the decision Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado, Oregon, California and Massachusetts have passed state free expression laws that do not allow student censorship.

But simply because Hazelwood gave schools the right to censor student publications, it doesn't mean that a school has to.

"Lafayette High School has operated as a public forum for the past 16 years that I've been here," said teacher and newspaper advisor, Nancy Smith. "The students are given the right and authority to make content decisions."

Clayton High School has a school board policy establishing that the newspaper is a public forum.

"We are extremely lucky that we have a supportive administration and school board," said English and journalism teacher and newspaper adviser, Nancy Freeman. "Always, by tradition, we have acted as an open forum. But a few years ago, we had a principal that was new to the district, who acted like he wanted to change that policy. The school superintendent stepped in to give the students more protection. It's really great."

For other districts the school's policy varies from principal to principal.

"I've only been here four years, but the policy has changed with every principal that we've had," said newspaper advisor with Francis Howell Central High School, Matthew Schott. "My students and I have fought for no prior review. This year we don't have it, and we're very excited. We thanked the principal and take the privilege seriously. Plenty of others don't have that luxury."

Typically, newspaper advisors are not the ones who censor the students' newspapers. The advisors serve as guides to students, throwing out ideas and opinions. Many times, they only step in when the students are publishing something that could be considered obscene, libel or an invasion of privacy, Smith said. Even though, principals and other administers are the ones that typically conduct prior review that doesn't mean that teachers might not as well.

"You put a new teacher who's concerned about their job and facing pressure from the administration, and they do alter the paper," Smith said. "I don't think that many would, but it does happen. The school doesn't like negative press."

The question of what can be censored is one that was not addressed fully in Hazelwood.

"The great mystery out of the case is what is a legitimate educational justification," said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center. "The Supreme Court was not particularly clear on what that meant, and some high school administrators read that to mean that I can sensor whatever they want."

The Supreme Court only provided a few examples what might be censorable: material that is "ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane or unsuitable for audiences."

Potentially sensitive topics such as "the existence of Santa Claus in an elementary school setting," "The particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school set-ting" and "speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with the 'shared values of civilized social order'" may also be censored.