Content-Type: text/html
QUEST FOR FREEDOM:
CURTAILING CENSORSHIP
IN THE SCHOLASTIC PRESS
by
Laurie Ann Lattimore
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL
205-348-8124
Submitted to the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
2001 Convention
Washington, DC
QUEST FOR FREEDOM:
CURTAILING CENSORSHIP IN THE SCHOLASTIC PRESS
ABSTRACT
By Laurie Ann Lattimore
University of Alabama
[log in to unmask]
The 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier U.S. Supreme Court decision on the high school press has crippled student newspapers across the country, and a number of surveys indicate censorship existed as much prior to 1988 as after. The increasing prevalence of self-censorship has further hampered solid student journalism. Because Hazelwood assigns administrators the final authority on content, students and advisers anticipate backlash and nix story ideas long before they hit newsprint. The case has even affected outside opinions on student free expression rights. A 1997 poll by the Student Press Law Center indicated only 46 percent of the respondents believed high school students should be allowed to report something controversial. The educational blunder in such inhibiting circumstances cannot be accurately measured, but the detrimental effect on creative, seeking minds can be fathomed.
But some are devoting much energy to ensuring the Hazelwood decision does not win out. Once the Supreme Court handed down its opinion, journalism educators went to work on state laws that guaranteed First Amendment protections to high school students in spite of Hazelwood. Six states - California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas and Arkansas - have such legislation protecting their high school journalists. At least 29 states have attempted or are attempting a student free expression bill but have so far been unsuccessful.
The purpose of this research is to take a microscopic view of several incidences of censorship in the high school press that are representative of censorship scenarios around the country and consider how the presence or absence of a student free expression bill has impacted the journalism experience at the high school level.
Quest for Freedom:
Curtailing censorship of the student press
When Justin Bogan published his monthly column in the February 1987 issue of his high school newspaper, The Rocky Mountain Highlighter, he expected some backlash. After all, it's hard to refer to the school's "spirit stick" as a phallic symbol and not get someone riled up. But that was his goal. By Bogan's estimations, many of his school's traditions were absurd and were getting in the way of education; throwing phallic symbol and a few other choice descriptions in his copy only underscored that point. So when calls started coming into the Highlighter office of the suburban high school in Fort Collins, Colo., Bogan was the least surprised. He expected it, perhaps even planned for it.
But Bogan did not plan for a debate with the PTA that would result in a long struggle over student press rights. The 17-year-old and his staff won the initial battle, using the First Amendment as a sword to thwart the principal's proposal for an editorial review board. A year later when the Supreme Court rubber-stamped prior restraint by school officials, Bogan and his fellow staff members were without legal recourse in fighting censorship of the student press.
Unfortunately, Bogan's story is an all too common anecdote in the last decade. "Prior review" is how the arrangement is typically tagged by school officials, but young reporters and adult sympathizers deride it as censorship. The 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier U.S. Supreme Court decision has crippled student newspapers across the country, according to much of the qualitative research in the last dozen years.[1] And a number of surveys indicate censorship existed as much prior to 1988 as after. The increasing prevalence of self-censorship has further hampered solid student journalism. Because Hazelwood assigns administrators the final authority on content, students and advisers anticipate backlash and nix story ideas long before they hit newsprint. The case has even affected outside opinions on student free expression rights. A 1997 poll by the Student Press Law Center indicated only 46 percent of the respondents believed high school students should be allowed to report something controversial.[2] The educational blunder in such inhibiting circumstances cannot be accurately measured, but the detrimental effect on creative, seeking minds can be fathomed.
This landmark decision that has accomplished little more than justifying administrative control over student expression has forever changed the student press. Hazelwood has brought out the passionate and hardcore student journalists who want to make sure their school newspaper experience is their own. The enlightened principal leaves the guidance to the advisers and the content control to the student editor. In other cases, however, a review policy of some measure is put in place, and free speech becomes the subject of battle rather than the weapon to stop one.
But a few visionaries have devoted much energy to ensuring the Hazelwood decision does not win out. Once the Supreme Court handed down its opinion, journalism educators went to work on state laws that guaranteed First Amendment protections to high school students in spite of Hazelwood. Six states - California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas and Arkansas - have such legislation protecting their high school journalists. At least 29 states have attempted or are attempting a student free expression bill but have so far been unsuccessful.
The purpose of this research is to take a microscopic view of several incidences of censorship in the high school press that are representative of censorship scenarios around the country and consider how the presence or absence of a student free expression bill has impacted the journalism experience at the high school level. Censorship of the scholastic press has received healthy treatment in the literature - particularly in the aftermath of the Hazelwood case - but there has been no study of how effective the legislative solution for restoring student press rights has been in curbing censorship. That is the goal of this study.
In this condensed report, three representative cases from a larger research study have been chosen for in-depth examination of the relationship between student free expression laws - or the absence of - and censorship of high school newspapers. The cases come out of states that are each in different phases of supporting a student free expression law. One is from California - the first state to have a student free expression law; another is from Indiana - a state that has battled unsuccessfully for a decade to have a state law; and finally from Texas - a state that has not considered such a law.
Before delving into the three cases, a brief review of the legislative and court history regarding rights of the student press plus a review of the scholarship on censorship of student publications is in order.
Legal History of Student Press Rights
To effectively analyze the current status of scholastic press freedom, it is necessary to first consider the evolution of student press rights. It was nearly two centuries after the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 that the First Amendment was applied to students in the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines case.[3] And conflicts over censorship of student newspapers are an even more recent phenomenon as the U.S. Supreme Court did not address press rights of students until the landmark Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case in 1988. Since Hazelwood, court battles over the student press have continued only at the state and federal level. The following investigation into student press rights is divided into three eras - the early years (1870-1968); from Tinker to Hazelwood (1969-1988); and beyond Hazelwood (1989-present).
Before diving into the court history; however, it is necessary to introduce the public forum doctrine, a key question throughout student press history, which for this research, is where the story begins.
I. Public Forum Doctrine
It was a Supreme Court decision in the 1930s that modernized the public forum doctrine we use today to determine when a publication qualifies for full First Amendment rights. A rather young concept in law, the public forum doctrine represents a negotiation between open public expression and the government's right to control its property. In 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state's right to prohibit the use of public property for expressive purposes when it allowed the government to prosecute individuals for preaching to crowds in Boston Common.[4] But four decades later, the Supreme Court revamped its position, saying the uses of streets and parks "for communication views ... must not in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."[5] The public forum doctrine matured during the social movements of the 1960s as civil rights activists and others challenged social order through public demonstrations. Trying to balance First Amendment rights with the government's desire
for domestic tranquility, the Supreme Court addressed two major issues with the public forum doctrine - which areas are to be considered public forums, and among those deemed so, what time, place and manner restrictions on expression are constitutional?
Contemporary public forum doctrine embraces the Supreme Court's distinction of three types of public forums - traditional, designated/limited, and nonforum - which the Court distinguished in its 1983 decision, Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educator's Association.[6] A traditional forum includes streets, sidewalks and parks that are held in public trust and have frequently been used for public assembly, communication between citizens and discussing public issues. Governments may not close these public forums and must provide reasonable access to all speakers regardless of their views. Case law has added some other public forums to the list, such as courthouses,[7] residential neighborhoods,[8] and even schools.[9]
A designated or limited public forum refers to places the government decides to open up for use in open discussion of public issues. The government maintains the right with a limited public forum to close it at any time as long as the reason to do so is narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling social or governmental interest. The government may not prohibit specific groups once it opens a particular area as a public forum just because it may not agree with the content.[10] A nonforum is a publicly owned facility dedicated to use as a communicative or noncommunicative place but that has not been identified as a public forum by the government and therefore enjoys significantly less First Amendment protection than the others.
Whereas the traditional and designated forums operate under a "strict scrutiny" standard for justifying any restriction to public expression, the government must only fulfill the "reasonableness" standard for nonforums. Under the strict scrutiny standard, the government must show a compelling reason for limiting the speech and its method must be narrowly tailored to achieve only its intended purpose. The reasonableness standard only requires that the restrictions not suppress expression just because the government disagrees with the message. The Supreme Court pointed out in Perry that government discrimination of speech in a nonforum can be content-based if the exclusion is reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum but not just because it opposes the speaker's viewpoint.
Prior to Hazelwood, courts had ruled that a student publication in a public school is considered a public forum as long as it publishes news, student editorials and letters to the editor and is distributed outside the journalism classroom.[11] Hazelwood changed that when the Supreme Court majority refused to classify the student newspaper as a public forum or even a limited forum, therefore justifying complete editorial control by the principal.
II. The Early Years
In spite of the courts' avoidance of, or perhaps disinterest in, First Amendment applications for secondary school students, students have been exercising freedom of the press for nearly a century. The earliest known student newspapers - the Student's Gazette of Penn Charter School in Philadelphia (begun in 1777); The Literary Journal of Boston Latin School (1829) and The Effort in Hartford, Connecticut (1851) - were not published under the school's umbrella but were produced independently by students working on their own time. High school journalism courses appeared on the scene in 1912, and gradually school-sponsored newspapers became standard.[12] As the academic support became more common for student publications, the writing improved but the content stagnated. Student newspapers became more like in-house bulletins with an expectation for only including "good news" about the school.[13] Tension mounted as the increased professionalization of student papers called for aggressi
ve, skeptical and even investigative reporting but school administrators were clamoring for a newspaper as a public relations tool. The clash reached a climax in the 1960s when general student unrest served as an impetus for a battle over expression. In fact, the American School Board Journal reported that more unrest existed among high school students in the 60s than of college students.[14] Finally in the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, the Supreme Court considered whether students in public schools had the same freedom of expression rights as adults. The case will be discussed in detail later, but it is important to note that Tinker was the standard for nearly two decades before the High Court reversed the precedent with its Hazelwood ruling.
Although attention has fixated on the Supreme Court decisions because of their national impact, lower courts were dealing with student expression for a century before justices of America's highest court considered the issue. The first known court case over student free expression dates to 1859 and the Vermont Superior Court.[15][16] An 11-year-old student called his schoolmaster "Old Jack Seaver" while walking in front of the schoolmaster's home. When the schoolmaster punished the student by whipping him the next day in class, the student sued, arguing he had a First Amendment right to say what he pleased. The state's high court ruled in favor of the schoolmaster, saying the child's remark had "an immediate impact with a tendency to injure the school" and subvert the schoolmaster's authority. Relying on two main legal doctrines - in loco parentis (the parent cedes some authority to the school) and minimum scrutiny for students rights in which the burden of proof falls to the stu
dent - the court maintained that such administrative power was necessary for the preservation of order and good government.[17]
There were a few supporters of student press rights in these early years. An Iowa court in 1870 overturned the expulsion of a student who had written two articles in a political journal criticizing his school board.[18] The liberal take on student rights, including the right of expression, did not evolve with some force until the middle of the 20th century, but it was a 1923 Supreme Court decision in which the liberal view on rights for students first appeared. The Court struck down a state law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages to students, arguing they had a right to acquire knowledge.[19]
It was still another 20 years, however, before the right of expression would be extended into secondary schools. The case came out of West Virginia in 1943[20] while America was embroiled overseas in World War II. The ruling overturned a 1940 decision in which the Court determined the First Amendment right to religious freedom of two Jehovah's Witnesses attending a public school did not supercede the state's right to maintain order and require all students to salute the American flag. The 1943 case again involved Jehovah's Witness students who protested the salute for religious reasons. This time, however, the Court considered the case more broadly as a freedom of expression matter rather than freedom of religion. Balancing individual liberty with a state interest in loyalty, the Court sided with the students, in spite of the wartime context. The Court said the flag salute was a form of expression and therefore the government could not compel citizens to express beliefs without violating their freedom of speech.[21]
The backdrop to the Tinker legacy was a growing interest among the Supreme Court and its lower court counterparts to grant rights to students in secondary schools. Although Tinker does not mention freedom of the press for high school journalists, it provided the philosophical justification for lower courts to extend the "substantial disruption" test from Tinker when balancing student First Amendment rights.
III. From Tinker to Hazelwood
In December 1965, a group of Des Moines, Iowa, high school students met at the home of one to discuss protesting the Vietnam War. They determined they would wear black armbands to their respective schools beginning Thursday, Dec. 16, through New Year's Day 1966. By Tuesday, district officials learned of the plot and issued a policy that students wearing armbands would be asked to remove them or be suspended. Most of the original group backed down, but Christopher Eckhardt, 16; Mary Beth Tinker, 13; and John Tinker, 15, wore the armbands as planned. The three were suspended as promised and did not return to school until Jan. 1, 1966 - the day the protest was scheduled to end. Christopher and Mary Beth recalled a lot of harassment from teachers and fellow students for their decision. Christopher remembered his gym coach saying anyone wearing armbands would be considered a communist sympathizer. "My former subversive activities had included being president of the student council in
elementary and junior high school, membership in the Boy Scouts, listing on the honor roll, delivering The Des Moines Register and shoveling snow for neighbors."[22] The students sued over a constitutional right of free expression according to First Amendment guarantees. After winding through district court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the students took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court in November 1968. A few months later the Court issued its landmark opinion that has remained a precedent-setting case for student First Amendment rights.[23] In fact, in spite of the bastion of free expression during the 1960s, Tinker was the first Supreme Court ruling that specifically allowed free expression for students.
In a 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court said the comprehensive authority of school officials to set rules must be consistent with the First Amendment rights of students and teachers who did not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[24] Justice Abe Fortas, writing for the Court, determined that wearing an armband as a silent form of expressing an opinion about the Vietnam War was among the students' primary First Amendment rights. The Court stressed that the public display of other political symbols had been allowed in school - including a swastika symbolizing Nazism - and only the black armbands had been banned. Such singling out was evidence that the policy was direct suppression of one viewpoint, a definite constitutional infringement according to the Court. Fortas wrote that state-operated schools may not be "enclaves of totalitarianism" where students are "closed-circuit recipients of only that which the state chooses to c
ommunicate."[25]
The real legacy in Tinker, however, is in the standard it created for determining when free speech rights could be curtailed because of interfering with the school's pedagogical mission to educate. The Tinker Court said only speech that "materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline" can be considered unacceptable and therefore prohibited. The "Tinker Test" then became a question of whether student speech "materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others."[26] In Tinker, the Court said no educational disruption existed nor were rights of others infringed through the silent demonstration. Of the 18,000 students in the district, only three wore the bands. In spite of hostile remarks to the Tinkers and Eckhardt, no violence occurred, and the Court said a fear of violence could not justify suspending the students for their expression. Thus the "Tinker Test" - speech that disrupts the educational mission of the school is not protected by the First Amendment - became the barometer for justifying school action toward student expression.
One of the first applications of the Tinker Test came the same year in a New York district court case, Zucker v. Panitz, where the school principal halted publication of a paid ad protesting the Vietnam War.[27] The district court, however, sided with the student newspaper staff and its editorial board in deciding the ad could be run according to the editorial policies of the Huguenot Herald. Referring to Tinker, the court noted that the newspaper was a forum for disseminating the news and therefore carried full First Amendment protection as long as the exercise of it did not "collide with rules of school authorities."[28] Zucker was the first in a long line of federal court decisions on student rights between 1969 and 1988.
Although Zucker followed the Supreme Court's rationale from Tinker, other federal court decisions were less inclusive when it came to First Amendment rights for students. In more than a dozen cases between 1969 and 1971, students won in only a handful.[29] But throughout the mid to late 1970s, the federal courts began taking a broader view of student rights, even relaxing their positions on vulgar text in publications.[30]
The major turning point came in 1986 when the Supreme Court's decision in a student speech case foreshadowed a similar demise for student press rights two years later.[31] Matthew Fraser gave a campaign speech for a fellow student running for a student body office. His speech before an assembled group of students contained indecent language school administrators considered lewd and suggestive[32] and in violation of a board policy prohibiting "the use of obscene, profane language or gestures."[33] The Court relied on the in loco parentis doctrine (some parental-type authority belongs to school administrators) in maintaining the school's action was in line with its educational mission to prevent offensive speech.[34] The Fraser standard then became one of reasonableness, according to the Court - First Amendment infringement that was reasonable in order to preserve the basic educational mission as determined by school officials would not be a constitutional violation.
The Court's deference to school officials over students in the Fraser case manifested itself in 1988 when it considered the case of the principal of a suburban St. Louis (Mo.) high school pulling two pages from the student newspaper, Spectrum, because he believed two articles to be poorly reported.[35] Principal Robert Reynolds objected to an article on teen pregnancy and one on divorce in the May 1983 issue of the student newspaper. Reynolds believed the pregnant teens and teen moms interviewed were identifiable despite false names, and he also felt a story on teen pregnancy to be inappropriate for some high school students. The principal pulled the divorce article because it quoted a student criticizing her parents without including comments from them or getting their permission to print the article. The district court upheld the censorship, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Drawing directly from Tinker, the Eighth Circuit argued the student paper was a public f
orum that deserved First Amendment protection unless the expression was a material disruption to the learning process. The Supreme Court, however, saw the student paper as a nonforum in which reasonable action by the school was justifiable even where First Amendment rights intersected.
Justice Byron White devoted significant space to the public forum discussion, arguing first the appeals court's finding that the school was a limited public forum was "equivocal at best."[36] White claimed that although the Statement of Policy for the Hazelwood newspaper declared the paper "accepted all rights and responsibilities of the First Amendment," the context of the statement still implied the newspaper was part of school curriculum and the policy merely prevented the school from interfering with those rights. He added that there was no indication the student paper operated as anything other than part of the school curriculum, nor any attempt from the administration to create a place for a forum at the school.[37]
Relying on Fraser rather than Tinker, the Supreme Court believed the principal's actions were reasonable uses of prior restraint and outweighed the student's First Amendment rights. The 5-3 majority in Hazelwood reversed the Tinker standard by claiming First Amendment rights are not the same for students at school as for adults in other settings.[38] The Court said a school is not required to tolerate student speech it believes inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even if the government would be forbidden under the Constitution to censor the same speech outside the school. Furthermore, the Court rejected the notion that a student newspaper qualifies as a public forum in which full First Amendment protection of expression exists.[39] The Court also claimed the principal's actions were not censorship but rather proper editorial control since the school was the publisher of the newspaper.[40] Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White noted that since the school paper
was part of a "supervised learning experience" the standard from Fraser governed the case rather than Tinker: "We hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. This standard is consistent with our oft-expressed view that the education of the Nation's youth is primarily the responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local school officials, and not of federal judges."[41]
Since the majority found the principal's actions reasonable by the Fraser standard, it found no First Amendment violation. Justice William Brennan issued a chastising dissent - joined by Thurgood Marshall and John Blackmun - in which he disagreed with Fraser as the controlling standard. Brennan pointed out that free student expression undoubtedly will interfere with the school's pedagogical mission at times. Brennan believed the Court was right in curtailing the lewd speech by Fraser since it could have so distracted other students it would jeopardize the school's operation. Speech or expression that merely disagrees with the administration's view also frustrates the school's mission, Brennan argued, but it could not be prohibited because of the First Amendment violation: "If mere incompatibility with the school's pedagogical message were a constitutionally sufficient justification for the suppression of student speech, school officials could censor each of the students."[42] Bre
nnan further argued the Tinker position was a better standard to follow when considering infringement on First Amendment rights. Expression that "materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others" may be censored,[43] but this stricter standard adopted from Tinker is necessary when First Amendment rights are in question, Brennan argued.
IV. Beyond Hazelwood
During the 12 years since Hazelwood, the effect of the decision has been monumental. Lower courts have continually found the school newspaper to be a nonpublic forum, giving students few First Amendment weapons when fighting censorship. Courts have considered the administration's actions according to how reasonable they are in fulfilling their mission to educate. Rarely does such an approach yield a verdict in favor of the student newspaper. For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Clark County School District, the Ninth Circuit determined the student newspaper and yearbook to be nonpublic forums, allowing the administration to make the decision to ban any ads from Planned Parenthood.[44] Using the public forum analysis of Hazelwood, the Eighth Circuit upheld a school policy limiting distribution of any student publication to certain times and places and only if first approved by the principal.[45] A federal district court had a similar interpretation in Hedges v. Wauconda Community Unit School District when it allowed material to be distributed on school grounds that was not primarily prepared by a student, but any student work concerning activities and meetings of nonschool activities had to pass the principal's approval.[46] Although the ruling did not concern student newspapers directly, the
court's decision that the school was a nonpublic forum opened the door for the principal to have more control over the newspaper and other publications as well.
One of the most disturbing decisions drawing from the Hazelwood and Fraser legacy rather than Tinker came out of the Ninth Circuit in its 1992 case Chandler v. McMinnville School District.[47] The McMinnville, Oregon, school district hired replacements after teachers went on strike. A group of students wore stickers to school protesting the district's temporary action. The stickers displayed such slogans as, "We want our real teachers back," "Scab we will never forget," "I'm not listening scab," and "Scab" with a line through it. Students refused to follow a vice principal's order to remove the stickers and were subsequently sent home. They returned the next day with different stickers displaying the same message. Fearing further punishment when asked to remove the buttons the second day, they agreed and then filed suit in district court over First Amendment expression violations. Although very similar to the Tinker case, the district court granted the school district's motion to
dismiss, saying the stickers were inherently disruptive in spite of testimony that no altercations had occurred.[48] Although the Ninth Circuit allowed the students to argue their case, the result was almost the same. The circuit court quoted Tinker, saying students did not "shed their constitutional rights" just because they were in school and cannot be punished for expressing personal views unless it severely interferes with the educational mission of the school.[49] But the court added that students' First Amendment rights are "not coextensive" with those of others in society[50] so it is the right of the school board to determine what manner of speech is appropriate and inappropriate.[51] The Ninth Circuit categorized three types of speech - 1) vulgar, lewd, obscene and plainly offensive; 2) school-sponsored speech; 3) speech that is in neither of the first two but could reasonably lead school officials to fear disruption as a result.[52] Relying on the "reasonable action" st
andard from Fraser and the public forum principle from Hazelwood, the court claimed speech falling in any of these three categories could constitutionally result in disciplinary action, including prior restraint.[53]
In spite of Hazelwood and recent case history, some visionary journalism educators foresaw the dangers of curtailing student press rights and sought redemption through state legislatures. How well these student free expression laws help the student voice after Hazelwood is the main purpose of this study and will be addressed by researching the experiences in 15 high schools around the nation.
The Student Press Law Center reports increases each year in the number of calls from student editors and advisers regarding censorship of their newspapers and publications. The following section will consider the quantitative and qualitative research that addresses this issue.
Literature Review
A 1999 State of the First Amendment survey by Freedom Forum reported 53 percent of the public believed the American press has too much freedom; 60 percent of the public said high school students should not be free to print stories about controversial topics without the green light from school officials.[54] At the same time, the Student Press Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy group for student press rights, has reported increases every year in requests for legal assistance regarding censorship of the high school press. Latest figures from SPLC indicate the office received another record-setting 367 calls about censorship in 1999, up from 321 in 1998 and 297 in 1997.[55]
With a rather extensive legal history, free expression issues for students first attracted empirical research in the 1960s, but it was not until the 1980s that law and communications scholars directed more attention to freedom of the student press and limitations of it. Unfortunately, only a few of the studies conducted in the last three decades are statistically significant. Most were surveys of one state and generally had small sample sizes, making it impossible to generalize about the status of censorship in the scholastic press across the country. Additionally, different definitions of censorship have complicated theorizing about censorship and the student press. Nevertheless the studies are enlightening and at the minimum demonstrate how additional research would be useful for attacking future censorship issues. The following is not comprehensive but represents some of the more important studies in the last 30 years.
I. Before Tinker - Research in the 1960s
The earliest research was more interested in students' opinions about journalism as a career rather than their ideas about First Amendment rights. Penn T. Kimball and Samuel Lubell published a study on high school students' attitudes toward the profession in 1960.[56] Among other things, the authors discovered only one in five students serving on their high school newspapers or other publications had any intention of pursuing journalism as a career.
Don Horine found that statistic disturbing, so in 1965 he started researchers down a path that has been continuing since. Horine looked at the practices of high school newspapers in Los Angeles County to determine if the lack of press freedom discouraged student reporters from choosing journalism for their profession.[57] Only one of the 277 respondents did not believe the function of the student newspaper was to "support and reflect the proper image of the school," leaving the rest to consider student newspapers public relations tools rather than true journalistic publications. A majority of each group - 92 percent of principals, 88 percent of advisers and 74 percent of student editors - believed the paper should not criticize the principal or administration. As far as editorial control, 73 of the 91 principals (80 percent) said they read copy prior to publication - six read it always, two frequently, 21 occasionally, 18 seldom and 26 once or twice a year. Thirty-seven principals
reported censoring articles prior to publication; 50 said they had never censored an article.
In the fall of 1969 before the Tinker case was decided by the Supreme Court, Max James did a study on what type of censorship occurred in Arizona high schools.[58] He identified four types of censorship occurring - 1) prohibitions of content known from previous years to be disapproved of by administrators; 2) specific prohibitions issued annually by the administration; 3) prior review of content by administrators; 4) threats to cut funding to the school publication.[59] James' study revealed 29 percent of the high schools surveyed experienced problems of censorship and 32 percent reported punishment after publication because of the content. Eleven percent of the schools reported no censorship while another 25 percent said no censorship had occurred but probably would if the newspaper attempted more controversial topics.[60]
II. Between Tinker and Hazelwood - Research in the 1970s, 80s
The previous section followed the evolution of legal thought on student free expression. After the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students retain their First Amendment rights while at school, lower courts generally supported that view. Prior to the Tinker decision, student newspapers generally operated in a public relations function, promoting the school - its functions and its administration - with little or no negative coverage. The National Education Association reported in 1970 that 62 percent of high school newspaper advisers favored censorship of the student press. In the years following Tinker, scholars found less of an increase in student free expression than they had expected. Although school administrators admitted to having less censorship authority, studies indicate principals, advisers and students did not understand the full protection of the student press granted via the Tinker decision.
The most ambitious study of high school censorship to date was commissioned in 1973 by the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial and published in a book entitled, Captive Voices.[61] The commission defined censorship as prior restraint and referred to it often as "overt censorship." Advisers reported that 17 percent of the time school administrators had final say in what was published in the student newspaper, compared to the adviser 67 percent of the time and the student editor 16 percent of the time. When it came to questions directly related to First Amendment freedom, the Kennedy Commission concluded that the amount of prior restraint was related to how much the newspaper deviated from a public relations role. Of the 312 publications staff members responding to the survey, 58 percent reported editorial decisions were made by student journalists with the adviser's guidance. Decisions by students only occurred 18 percent of the time, and 11 percent of the time advisers determined the edit
orial content of the paper.[62] One of the most interesting findings of the commission was that libel, obscenity and school disruption were rarely the reason behind administrative censorship. Instead, the commission discovered that controversial political issues, criticism of school administrators and social problems like drug use and teen pregnancy were the top three reasons for prior restraint.[63] Looking at three types of censorship - administrative, adviser and self-censorship by the students - the commission determined that censorship from the top had the most force, but self-censorship was the most pervasive.[64] The commission did not limit its condemnation to school administrators, however. The lack of support for a free student press by the professional news media was quite disturbing to the commission. A random sample of 465 managing editors at daily newspapers showed that only 35 percent believed student journalists should have full First Amendment rights while 52 perc
ent thought only under certain conditions student journalists could be trusted with such freedoms.[65]
As somewhat of a response to the Kennedy Commission report, Laurence Campbell conducted a 1974 survey of 145 high school principals and 317 student newspaper advisers.[66] He concluded that the First Amendment was not safe in secondary schools - "It is probable that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would not have been adopted today if it were left up to representatives of the participating principals and advisers, many of whom reflect the attitudes of summer soldiers and patriots."[67] For example, only 51 percent of advisers and 46 percent of principals agreed with the courts that the risk of suppressing free student expression was greater than the risk of some students abusing their First Amendment rights of free speech.
James J. Nyka tested the general findings of the Kennedy Commission among Illinois student newspapers in 1976 based on surveys from 123 principals and advisers. Among more specific findings, Nyka reported his study revealed most principals and advisers were either oblivious to First Amendment freedoms afforded students or chose to ignore them, and that they considered high school journalists incapable of handling controversial topics responsibly in the press.[68] Of the 65 principals responding, 58 percent believed students had the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists according to the law, but only 54 percent thought students and professionals should have the same rights.
Based on the disturbing findings in the Kennedy Commission report and follow-up studies, two researchers wondered whether students, advisers and administrators really understood what First Amendment rights students had based upon the Tinker decisions.[69] Broussard and Blackmon asked advisers, students and principals from 126 randomly selected high schools in 31 states to determine how a court would rule in 10 different cases. Advisers stated the correct outcome in 48 percent of the cases, compared to 38 percent for students and 33 percent for principals. However, the researchers found that in three of the 10 cases, student editors did significantly better (based on a chi square analysis) than the other two groups; whereas advisers and principals did not do significantly better than the other two in any of the 10 scenarios.[70]
Finally in 1980 a Harvard student wanted a more definitive answer to how much freedom existed in the student press and what school characteristics contributed to censorship.[71] For his senior thesis, Nicholas Kristof surveyed 278 student editors and 107 student newspaper advisers or teachers at schools without a student newspaper. At its publication, Kristof's study was the most reliable with a large sample size (278), a response rate of 77 percent and high schools selected randomly across the country. His paper remains one of the seminal works on student press rights. It also was the first study to consider the degree of censorship, which Kristof defined as "any official interference by intimidation or coercion with student control of the newspaper."[72] Kristof measured censorship according to six questions - 1) Has there been any censorship of a student publication at your school? 2) Does the newspaper adviser or school administration discourage the newspaper from probing con
troversial areas? 3) How restricted is your newspaper in covering sensitive subjects? 4) Suppose the newspaper staff wanted to print the following in an editorial: "Far too much money at this school goes for athletics and not nearly enough to academics. The school administration has the wrong priorities, and until things get straightened out a diploma from here will not mean that much." Do you think you would be permitted to write that in your school paper? 5) Regardless of your answer above, suppose you decided to include a major article on the front page about the petition drive and criticisms of the principal. Do you think the administration would let you do this? 6) Would you be worried that if you tried to run such an article about the principal it might be censored or the administration might try to punish you or the newspaper? Unlike previous surveys that only assessed censorship by how often administrators or advisers reviewed copy, this study factored in self-censorship.
Kristof noted that the reason many student editors reported no censorship in other surveys was because the student newspapers were not covering anything sufficiently controversial that would invite censorship.
As far as characteristics typical of a censorship environment, Kristof's hypothesis that censorship would most likely occur in traditional communities proved true. He defined the traditional community as a small town with smaller schools where students are deferential and high school journalism is not taken very seriously. Kristof found five factors that generally contributed to censorship - school size, town size, class character (upper, middle, working), level of deference, and willingness to cover controversy. Based on a five-way multiple regression analysis, Kristof determined that controversy and deference were directly related to censorship, while school size, town size and class character were indirectly related.[73] According to his model, Kristof determined the West had the least amount of censorship, and the South, as predicted, had the most. On his 11-point scale, the West registered 3.1, Central and East both had 4.5, and the South tapped in at 4.7.[74] In his final conclusions, Kristof pointed to the statistic that less than 19 percent of the student editors said they were completely unrestricted and only 14 percent reported having final approval of what went into the student newspaper. This led Kristof to believe little had changed in the freedoms granted student journalists since Tinker. "The reason for the persistence of censorship is that it rests less on laws and court decisions than on attitudes and political cultures. ...High school journalism is in poor health - it is pallid, apathetic and bland - but new rules alone will not invigorate high school newspapers. ...Attitudes - of students, principals and entire communities - w
ill have to change before censorship, self-censorship and stultifying deference are rooted out."[75]
At the end of the decade, J. William Click and Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver found that only 19 percent of principals and 37 percent of advisers believed guarantees of free expression in the student newspaper outweighed public relations considerations of the school. Related to that, 59 percent of principals and 40 percent of advisers considered the student newspaper more of a learning tool than a vehicle for free expression.[76] Three-fifths of principals agreed discipline in the school was more important than publishing a newspaper free of censorship. On questions about censorship, responses suggest overall that prior review is generally accepted by both principals and advisers.[77]
III. After Hazelwood - Research in the 1980s, 90s
One of the earliest works published following the January 1988 Hazelwood opinion by the Supreme Court was Robert P. Knight's assessment of the decision and suggestions for coping in the new era of student press censorship.[78] In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court majority approved censorship of the student press, maintaining a school newspaper was not a public forum and therefore did not deserve full First Amendment protection. Knight articulated what he called "Knight's Paradigm" - a continuum for dealing with the Hazelwood ruling. On one end, schools could declare their newspapers public forums and have true freedom of expression. At the other end, schools could severely restrict what would be published. Or schools could choose something in between.
The Court's endorsement of prior review and restraint of student publications by the administration added a new dimension, which prompted researchers to reconsider the "freedom climate" now that the Supreme Court had jumped into the mix. The earliest post-Hazelwood quantitative studies came from surveys in three different states. Within days of the Court's decision, Paula and Bruce Renfro and Roger Bennett sent questionnaires to the principal, newspaper adviser and student editor of all 300 high schools in the Texas Interscholastic League Press.[79] Of the 139 principals with an opinion on the Hazelwood case, 94 percent approved, compared to just 17 percent of the 90 advisers. The authors found that advisers who had been working with student newspapers for more than 10 years were more likely to agree with the Hazelwood Court (31 percent) while only 10 percent of advisers with less than 10 years experience approved of the ruling. Advisers and student editors were more hesitant tha
n principals about the effect the decision would have on the student press. Ninety-seven percent of principals expected no change compared to 76 percent of advisers and 78 percent of students. While only 4 percent of advisers as well as students expected change, 20 percent of the advisers and 18 percent of the student editors were not sure what to expect.[80]
Some of the more reliable quantitative studies following Hazelwood were surveys conducted by Thomas Dickson. In 1989, Dickson surveyed advisers[81] and principals[82] at 100 random Missouri high schools. Seventy-four of the principals and 56 of the advisers responded. Just over 60 percent of the principals viewed their student newspapers as public forums, therefore agreeing the students enjoyed First Amendment guarantees of a free press. About one-third of the principals said they reviewed the student newspaper before publication, which he discovered had a direct correlation to school size. More than 50 percent of the smallest schools and 33 percent of medium-sized schools reported prior review compared to only 13.6 percent of the larger schools. And less than 20 percent of the principals said they planned to look at their school newspapers more closely after the Hazelwood decision. Finally, Dickson asked principals to identify types of information they were likely to censor. Almost 90 percent said dirty language would be censored, while 60.8 percent said stories about sex and 56.8 percent said stories about drugs
might be objectionable. Dickson concluded from his study that Hazelwood did not seem likely to cause much change in current policies but that censorship was already an unwritten policy in many schools.[83]
These studies during the years immediately following Hazelwood all found little evidence of increased censorship in state high schools around the nation as was feared, but none had been a random survey of the entire nation.[84] So in 1990, Dickson conducted a 36-question survey of 504 high schools, 379 of which had a student newspaper.[85] Among his eight research questions, the author wanted to find out whether advisers and principals increased prior restraint, whether students increased self censorship, whether stories were more fair and balanced after Hazelwood and were student newspapers less likely to contain controversial stories. Dickson concluded overall that the survey corroborated previous studies, which found little change from censorship practices prior to Hazelwood. Sixty-five percent of advisers said their school newspapers existed as an open forum for protected speech, and 23 percent said there were some restrictions on subject matter.[86] Dickson did discover a sm
all increase in the number of principals using prior review. Though 84 percent of advisers still did not submit the entire newspaper for review, nearly half of those who did (7 percent) began doing so after the Hazelwood ruling. Despite a slight increase in prior review, most advisers reported no increase in prior restraint. Only 4 percent reported more rejections by the principal than before; 82 percent said no change in number of rejections and 1 percent reported fewer rejections.[87] Dickson reported no increase in self-censorship, according to the advisers responding to the survey. However, 20 percent reported students were somewhat less likely to write about controversial subjects while 10 percent said their students were much less likely to take on the controversial issues. Only two-thirds said students were about as likely to write on a controversial topic as before. The researcher asked advisers to indicate how many of their student newspapers had written about certain pot
entially controversial issues in the previous year. Seventy-three percent indicated they had tackled alcohol abuse, and 71 percent reported doing articles on drug abuse. But only 54 percent had done teen sexuality issues, 44 percent did AIDS and 21 percent did divorce and broken homes.[88] He also considered how certain demographics influenced the student newspapers. The following findings were statistically significant in the study: a) Advisers in communities over 10,000 population were more likely to view the student newspaper as a forum for student expression while advisers in communities under 10,000 more often saw the student newspaper as a public relations tool for the school; b) Of all schools with a policy on review, schools in the South were more likely to state that certain topics were not allowed to be covered in the student paper; c) the larger the school and the more teaching experience of the adviser, the more likely the student publication ran a variety of controversial stories.[89] Dickson's study was later summarized in a book he published with two other authors who noted in the conclusion they were surprised by the study's outcome that Hazelwood had not had the negative impact so many feared.[90] The authors independently did further studies to follow-up on these findings[91] and to explain why anecdotal reports were sending a different message - one that self-censorship was rampant because of Hazelwood.[92]
Two years later, Dickson sought to determine from students how much self-censorship was occurring and for what reasons. He received a total of 323 surveys from student editors and 387 surveys from student newspaper advisers for the analysis.[93] Among the respondents with an opinion on the Hazelwood ruling, 81 percent of student editors disagreed with the outcome compared to 69 percent of advisers, a statistically significant finding. When it came to the issue of censorship and self-censorship, the author concluded neither was taking place very often in high schools nor was either preventing coverage of controversial issues. Dickson based this opinion on several questions of prior review, prior restraint and self-restraint. Sixty-two percent of the student editors and 64 percent of advisers reported principals never read the contents of the newspaper prior to publication; however, editors reported 17 percent of the time and advisers reported 14 percent of the time review by the p
rincipal occurred fairly often, quite often or always. For prior restraint, 21 percent of student editors and 27 percent of advisers said the student could not run a particular editorial; 37 percent of student editors and 35 percent of advisers said advisers had withheld an editorial because of subject matter.[94] Similar percentages were true for advisers prohibiting certain stories from being covered - 36 percent of student editors and 30 percent of advisers reported such occurrences. Approximately one-third of student editors (34 percent) and advisers (37 percent) also reported the principal had refused to run a particular story. When it came to self-restraint, only one percent of student editors said they often withheld editorials or stories because they were too controversial. Thirty-five percent of student editors indicated they occasionally did not run controversial stories because they didn't believe they would be able to run them while 5 percent said they often censored s
tudent articles before publication.[95] Controlling for schools with a publications review policy, the authors reported student editors indicated a much higher occurrence of self-censorship. For example, student editors tended not to allow the staff to print stories about controversial topics for fear the principal would ban it in review. It was also more likely at schools with a publications review policy for the adviser to recommend the staff not print certain stories.[96]
Three researchers took a different approach in their study of Hazelwood reactions. Lyle Olson, Roger Van Ommeren and Marshel Rossow surveyed 72 directors of state and national scholastic press associations.[97] More than two-thirds (69 percent) believed Hazelwood had a negative impact on high school journalism, and about the same number (65 percent) believed student journalists should only exercise First Amendment rights with the supervision of an adviser. Only 31 percent thought student journalists should have total freedom. However, 87 percent considered it censorship if an adviser or administrator refused publication of an article. When asked to rank the most appropriate group for being in control over freedom of expression in high school newspapers, the directors listed students first, teachers/advisers second, courts third, school administrators fourth, school boards fifth and parents last.[98]
In 1999, Click and Kopenhaver were interested in any changes since their 1989 study in opinions about Hazelwood more than a decade after the decision. Ninety percent of both principals and advisers declared the purpose of the school newspaper was for student news and comment. Forty-seven percent of principals thought the principal controlled the paper; 49 percent believed the adviser was in control. Sixty-one percent of advisers believed they had ultimate control, compared to 23 percent who thought principals were the final authority. Only 10 percent of advisers and one principal answered that students had ultimate control.[99] Asked if their school newspaper is censored, 75 percent of the principals and 73 percent of the advisers agreed it was.[100] Ninety-five percent of principals and 62 percent of advisers agreed school administrators have the right to control the student paper if the school provides some funding for the paper. This is a slight change from the 1984-85 study in which 87 percent of principals and 56 percent of advisers thought administrators should have final say in the student newspaper if the school subsidized the
newspaper.[101] A large majority of principals (94 percent) and advisers (81 percent) also believed the newspaper adviser is obligated to warn the principal of any controversial stories that may appear in an upcoming issue - a similar outcome as stated in the 1989 study. However, principals and advisers in the current study differed from the past survey over stories that may embarrass the school administration. Sixty-three percent of principals and 45 percent of advisers thought advisers should prevent stories that put the school in a bad light. In 1989, only 43 percent of principals and 19 percent of advisers felt that way.[102] Likewise, in 1989 61 percent of principals thought high school students did not earn the right of free press responsibility even after journalism training. Ten years later, 84 percent of principals felt that way.[103] The authors also reported some anecdotes in their study, most showing that censorship is alive and well in the nation's public high school
s. Summarizing the results of the 1999 study and comparing them with the two previous studies, the authors concluded that current censorship is merely a continuation of previous years, even before the Hazelwood ruling.
Dickson completed a national survey of high school newspaper advisers in 1999 to determine if high school press freedom differs in states with expression laws.[104] This study is significant because it is a national random survey with a decent response rate (412 advisers, 230 from press law states and 182 from non-press law states) and can therefore have a broader application to the student press generally. Paxton and Dickson used three research questions to compare press law and non-press law states - 1) Do attitudes about press freedom differ among advisers in the different states? 2) Is the amount of prior review and prior restraint reported by advisers different in the different states? 3) Are advisers in non-press law states more likely to report self-censorship? The authors found in non-press law states, advisers were more likely to correct student factual errors, more likely to think advisers, not student editors, have ultimate control of the paper, and more likely to beli
eve students are too immature to practice responsibility in the press. But overall, Paxton and Dickson did not find support from advisers in press law states to have a much more liberal view of press freedom in high school newspapers.[105] With the second research question - adviser reports of restraints on press freedom - the authors again found little support for the proposition that there would be a significant difference. The one response with a significant difference was over principals censoring editorials. In press law states, 18 percent of advisers said it occurred, compared to almost twice that many (30 percent) in non-press law states.[106] Regarding self-censorship, Paxton and Dickson concluded no difference between advisers: "Advisors [sic] in non-press law states were no more likely than those in press law states to respond that student reporters refrained from doing controversial stories because the advisor [sic] might see them as objectionable." The authors contend in their overall discussion that since no real difference of opinions exists between advisers from press law or non-press law states, the student expression laws are neither a "panacea for Hazelwood nor a mandate for license by student journalists."[107]
Research on high school press censorship over the past three decades has been useful for quantifying how it exists. Debate remains in the academy over the discrepancies between quantitative studies that suggest censorship is no worse currently than it ever has been versus qualitative studies implying the iron hand of school administrators is ever more prevalent since the Supreme Court legalized and legitimized administrative authority over the student press.
Method of Study
Research has rather consistently shown that censorship of the student press has existed throughout history. How successful the student press has been in its retaliation efforts is the foundation for this study. As mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of this research is to compare through case studies how effective state free expression laws for the student press have been in combating censorship, and perhaps more importantly, preventing self-censorship. To do this, two research questions with the following hypotheses have been posed:
Research Question 1 = Does having a state law supporting First Amendment rights of students - giving them full authority and accountability for the information they print - make a difference in censorship disputes?
a) Are there more censorship disputes in states with a greater awareness of student rights?
b) Is there a difference in the level of seriousness with disputes?
c) Is there a difference in how censorship disputes are resolved if a state law exists as support?
Hypothesis: In states where a student free expression law exists, the number of censorship incidents will be higher, the level of seriousness of censorship disputes will be lower. However, resolution will more often involve legal recourse since an awareness of legal rights will presumably be greater.
Research Question 2 = Where a state law does exist, how successful has the law been in resolving censorship disputes in favor of the students and upholding First Amendment rights?
Hypothesis: The existence of a state student free expression law may result in more cases of reported censorship because of a heightened awareness of rights by the students but will also more often lead to resolution in favor of student rights.
I. Defining Censorship
One of the major flaws of previous research is its failure to define censorship. Generally, unless otherwise stated, it was understood to be prior restraint - refusing to run an article or print an issue because of questionable content. Occasional studies defined censorship as any interference from teachers or administrators that prevented publication. Some of the more recent research has attempted to account for self-censorship, but only one study actually asked student editors to respond to questions that would indicate whether they censored themselves.[108]
For this study, "censorship" will have multiple definitions, according to the degree to which censorship is being imposed. The degree will correspond with the "level of seriousness" assigned to each chosen case study - the first degree of censorship will match level 1 on the seriousness scale, second degree to level two, and so on. For this study, censorship will be classified according to five types, with number one being the lowest level (prior review) and number five being the highest (student self-censorship). The five types were designed according to the most common forms of censorship noted in court cases and previous surveys. Consult the following chart for definitions:
Degree Level Definition
First I The principal reviews the articles and/or entire issue of the student newspaper.
Second II The principal threatens student reporters that if they investigate, report, write subversive articles,
the articles will be pulled or the paper will not run.
Third III The principal halts publication of an article or entire issue
Fourth IV Disciplinary action taken by the principal following publication of an article (i.e.: firing adviser, eliminating the journalism class; requiring a retraction)
Fifth V The adviser prevents students from investigating/reporting a particular topic because of fear of content
Sixth VI Student reporters and/or editors kill particular story ideas or actual article because of fear of retaliation from the school principal (self- censorship).
II. The Study
Prior research on high school press issues has almost exclusively been done through surveys of advisers, administrators and occasionally students. Rather than doing another survey, this research is an in-depth study of 15 typical censorship incidences across the nation. Through introspective interviews of all parties involved in a particular case of censorship, the actions, reactions, attitudes, decisions and responses can be investigated and analyzed. The one-on-one interview allows the respondent to know the exact meaning of the questions posed, and the answers are equally as understandable to the researcher. By isolating real instances of several types of censorship - as defined above - explanations from students, advisers and administrators can provide an accurate picture of what censorship in today's high schools looks like in the aftermath of the Hazelwood opinion.
To begin researching this study, it was determined to focus on censorship cases that had occurred from the fall of 1996 through the spring of 2000. This time period was chosen for several reasons. In order to compare states with press laws versus those without (either states fighting for one or never considering it) it was necessary to allow at least one year after the law was passed for school newspapers and administrators to learn the law had been passed and about its parameters. The last student expression bill to gain passage was in Arkansas in 1995, so beginning in 1996 allowed for schools in that state to become familiar with the new law. Not going much before 1996 also ensured better luck in finding the students and teachers involved since five years is not usually too difficult to trace back. The final consideration was the ease in finding the cases. Only the Virginia-based Student Press Law Center has consistently tracked and recorded reports of censorship among high scho
ol press. The SPLC has subsequently logged all reports since 1996 on its web site (www.splc.org).
The process of selecting case studies consisted of going through each reported case listed on the SPLC site and assigning a censorship definition plus a reason for censorship. The reasons for censorship could be narrowed down to five basic categories - a) critical of school policy, officials, or teachers; b) controversial topic; c) an underground newspaper; d) sloppy journalism generally; e) content was libelous, obscene, promoted violence in school; or was an invasion of privacy. Determining the reason behind the censorship helped systematize the selection so the case studies chosen were those representative of typical censorship scenarios around the country.
Of the 94 cases reviewed for selection, 45 percent were censored because the article was critical of the school or its administration; 20 percent were censored because they were about controversial topics, such as drugs in high schools, teen pregnancy, AIDS or racism. The 15 cases chosen included three from states with a student press law, six from states that have battled the idea for at least a year or more, and six from states that have never considered a press law or have just recently proposed the idea. Appendix A charts the chosen case studies, identifying the school name and state, status of a student expression law, definition of censorship and reason behind the censorship.
Results
The final step was to identify common factors to consider in each case study that contribute to specific outcomes related to censorship. This step is necessary for providing some tangible measurement when comparing censorship situations in the three proposed press law environments. Appendix B lists those contributing factors considered for evaluating each case study which will be discussed in the conclusion.
Researching the case studies was similar to news reporting. A list of questions was drawn up for administrators, advisers and students (Appendix C). The questions were divided into three parts - background information, knowledge of student press law and specifics of the case in question. Interviews were primarily conducted by telephone. Full text of the interviews is included in Appendix D, but a summary of each scenario is highlighted here:
The Odyssey, Newman Smith High School, Carrollton, Texas
Chrissy Ragan wasn't the stereotypical "rabble rouser" on the high school newspaper staff at Newman Smith High School. While those students existed on The Odyssey, she wasn't one of them. So neither the staff nor its adviser, Angel Clemmer Jenkins, expected any flack to arise out of her story idea to report on the formation of a gay/lesbian support group at the school.
"A girl in my English class was telling me about this group and a student petition that was going around to submit to the school board in defense of starting the group," Ragan recalls of that spring in 1998. It was going to be the last issue of the paper and the story seemed like a perfectly legitimate news article. "We were kind of thinking this would go on page one, but we never expected any problems."
But when Ragan went to interview the principal, Dr. Lee Alvoid, she found out differently. Alvoid, who was a journalism major for a while during her undergraduate at the University of Texas in Austin, didn't believe the story was newsworthy for the final issue of the year since the gay/lesbian students weren't planning to form an official "club" at the school.
"I was very clear that those students had a right to be a club, but they hadn't filed anything to actually form as a student organization, so I asked the newspaper staff to wait and do a story the next school year when the group formed, and it was an actual news event," Alvoid said. "But they went bezerko and thought I was censoring them."
Though the staff was prevented from publishing the story, they ran an editorial in the issue blasting the principal for censoring the paper. "We weren't even allowed to say what the story was about, so in the editorial we said a controversial issue that students were never going to find out about had been held out of the paper by the administration," Ragan said. "But this was a story we decided as a staff we were going to fight for."
Alvoid maintains her reason was primarily to protect the gay/lesbian students. "One of their reasons for not forming as an official club was because of the potential backlash. If they were a club, their pictures would be in the yearbook and some students might not have wanted to risk being known to classmates or their parents," Alvoid said. "I think they got exploited, but the newspaper staff definitely was not part of the Lee Alvoid fan club."
Ragan says she understands where the principal was coming from but still believes the main motivation for the censorship was because it was not an issue the surrounding community wanted to see in the student paper. However, Clemmer Jenkins says it was as much about a power struggle between her and the principal as it was about the topic. Clemmer Jenkins who also earned her B.A. from UT-Austin in journalism had been a news editor and reporter at a local newspaper for three years before becoming a teacher.
"I remember a lot of turmoil and not a lot of rationale surrounding this whole thing," she said. "I think the principal felt conflicted between wanting to give students enough control for good journalism but not wanting to lose control of them."
Clemmer-Jenkins, who started teaching with an emergency certificate since she had not gotten one while in school, did not have her three-year contract renewed the following school year. "It was a big joke that by the time I got certified, I had gotten fired!"
Texas does not have a student free expression law and has not debated it at the legislative level. None of the three were aware of the law in other states, but all were very familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Supreme Court decision. Alvoid believed she had the right under Hazelwood to review the newspaper prior to publication, but she chose not to make that a practice. However, she said she used her judicial power with the gay club story b/c she felt strongly it was going to exploit the gay students. Neither Ragan nor Clemmer-Jenkins agree with that power.
"I found it very difficult to teach under Hazelwood. A principal could hold any article and say it is in the best interest of the students," she said, noting that the adviser should be the only one besides the staff to have input in the newspaper content. "I just think Hazelwood allows for too much subjectivity and is too broad."
Not surprisingly, the adviser and student editor were in favor of adopting a student free expression law to bolster a case against an administrator trying to censor the paper while the principal favored the Hazelwood standard and saw the state laws as a hindrance to her duties as principal.
"As an administrator when you are held accountable for everything that happens on campus, you can't have control taken away," she said. "I'm sure the reason for the laws is abuse of Hazelwood, but I'm not hung up on that case. Newspaper is still a class and you have to have some restraints. The student newspaper should be an educated experience; not the free press."
Ragan disagrees. "The newspaper should reflect what is going on in student life and inform about it," she said. "It should be student-run and student-read."
But the three do agree the adviser is the key role in the student newspaper experience. Among the main three possibilities for improving student press rights - overturning Hazelwood principle, adding a state student free expression law, educating more advisers and administrators in the tenets of sound journalism and the 1st Amendment - all three favor an educated adviser.
"It all goes back to the adviser," Clemmer-Jenkins said. "I think the best route would be to require and offer journalism education to all newspaper advisers."
Clemmer -Jenkins is back full-time at Today Newspapers where she does graphic design and writes a weekly column. Ragan is a junior majoring in journalism at UT-Austin. Alvoid is still principal at Newman Smith High School.
The Echo, Avon High School, Avon, Indiana
The staff of The Echo had no intention of printing such an upsetting news story about hazing at its high school. At least not until the administration denied that it was really happening.
Marina Hennessy planned to report that hazing did not occur at Avon High after she read a story about hazing at a high school across town. In her early reporting, that was exactly what she found - nothing. But as she interviewed more sophomore football players she heard horror stories she did not want to believe.
"Our goal was really just to stop it, so if they had admitted it happened and agreed to call parents and do an investigation, we wouldn't have printed it," Hennessy said. "But when I interviewed the athletic director, and he said nothing happens at football camp that doesn't happen at church camp, I was appalled."
Hennessy and her adviser, Pam Essex, decided to tell the principal about the story to see if that would make a difference. When Joan Schafer also denied anything was wrong, the staff decided they were printing the story no matter what.
"We told her about a kid getting hit over the head with a broomstick and urinated on, and she just said it couldn't have been that bad," Hennessy said. "After that, we felt like we had to move on the story."
Hennessy's mother also got involved because of the mental toll it was taking on Marina. She told Essex not to agree to hold the story or she would send it to the Indianapolis Star and take it to the school board.
The day they went to press, Essex was called to the principal's office and told not to run the story. "We had already started sending it electronically to the printer because we knew that was going to happen," Essex said. "I told the principal I wasn't going to stop it. We eventually agreed to rewrite the lead and let the athletic director and coach write a prepared statement rather than using their direct quotes denying anything had happened."
Although both Hennessy and Essex didn't like having to make changes, they realized that the most important thing was to get the story out, not to make the school look bad, so they agreed to appease the administration at that point.
The principal during this incident is no longer at the school, but Hennessy said the current principal is good about not censoring the paper. In fact, the newspaper has a school board-approved editorial policy stating the principal will not review the paper.
Richard Helton, superintendent of schools, recalled the situation when The Echo was getting ready to break the story. Even though the administration would have had the legal right under Hazelwood to hold the story, Helton said, he believes factual reporting - no matter what the topic - should be encouraged and not condemned by school administrators even if it is critical or controversial.
"I have no opposition to reporting that is based on facts," he said. "As long as you report the facts, you can't dispute that. If it is factual reporting and not violating anyone else's rights, then it is fine."
Both Hennessy and Essex believe a state student free expression law - which Indiana has battled to pass through its legislature in recent years - would make a difference, especially in schools without such supportive administrators.
"It would have made things a lot easier for us, but we have a good principal," Hennessy said. She on a committee through the Indiana High School Press Association lobbying for such a law. "There are a lot of schools in this state though where I know this story never would have been printed."
But even without the law, Hennessy is opposed to administrative involvement in the student newspaper. "I think it is the students' job to make sure articles are accurate. Principals don't have the background for that."
Essex likewise believes the power belongs to the students and the adviser. But she is concerned that too many advisers just accept the censorship. "So many advisers now were on high school newspapers during the Hazelwood era, so they don't know any different," she said. "That is scary."
The Scroll, Nogales High School, LaPuente, California
At Nogales High School, one little photo on page one caused a lot of turmoil for the newspaper staff. When Alex Matal took a copy of the paper to the principal, he didn't expect it not to get any further than that.
"He groaned about a headline and then saw a picture of two guys wrestling on a mattress for our story on backyard wrestling," Matal recalled. "He took one look at it and said no way."
Matal and his adviser Lloyd Lofthouse protested, arguing the news story was pertinent because students in the school were involved in the activity. Since Dr. Marv Abrams thought backyard wrestling was illegal, he determined that the paper could not picture the sport. According to California's student free expression law, administrator intervention is prohibited but information must not be libelous, obscene or endorse illegal activity.
"I thought the district could get in trouble for showing illegal activity," Abrams said. "I told them that if something is illegal and the paper violates the state law, who gets in trouble - the students? No. The newspaper? No. The school."
Lofthouse subsequently resigned as adviser and Matal was fired from the newspaper staff this year for changing his story after the new adviser edited it for content. With obvious differences of opinion about the wrestling issue, the three have vastly different views about the purpose of the newspaper. Matal believes student life - whether be activities at school or involving students in the school - is grounds for a story. Abrams wants stories that pertain to the school. Lofthouse is adamant that the student paper not be a voice for the administration. "A PR pamphlet is for the district to do. They want us to cover up all realities and that is bullshit."
Matal likewise believes his principal would only allow stories that didn't make the school look bad. Stories about drugs, gangs or a teacher getting fired would never make the cut, he believes.
But Abrams sees his opinions differently. He was a self-titled "rabble rouser" on his high school newspaper, and he insists that the topic is not what concerns him about high school journalism. Fair, accurate and legal reporting is what concerns him. "Just do it right, dammit."
Matal did enforce the state law this year when Abrams nixed a story idea about drag racing before it was ever investigated. He contacted a lawyer, who advised the staff to draft a letter stating why that was censorship and would be prosecutable under the state expression law. The issue was resolved.
Discussion
The main purpose of this research was to study several instances of administrative intrusion into a student newspaper and identify a) the kind of censorship according to six definitions; b) the level of seriousness attributed to the censorship; and c) what factors contributed to it.
The first research question asked whether a state student free expression law would make a difference in the dispute based on three main measurements - 1) are there more instances of censorship in states without a law than those with a law? 2) is there a difference in the level of seriousness for the dispute? 3) is there a difference in how the disputes are resolved in states that have a law?
The hypothesis claimed there would actually be more instances of censorship reported in states with a law presumably because there would be more awareness among students and advisers of rights, which would prompt action more readily than in states where legal recourse was not an option. In fact, of the 93 censorship cases reviewed, only 15 (16 percent) originated within states currently banning administrative review of a student newspaper through a state free expression law. States that have debated the possibility of a law but have not been able to pass it, recorded 36 instances of reported censorship disputes (38.7 percent), and states that have not considered a law had 42 reported instances of censorship.
Among the 15 cases studied in-depth, the three cases from a state with a student free expression law fell under Level III (principal halts publication) for the "seriousness" of the censorship in two cases and under Level II (principal threatens to prevent the story from running) for another (See Appendix A). On our scale from Level I to Level VI, The cases arising from states fighting to get a law on the books all registered Level III for seriousness, with one case registering Level IV for its seriousness. The most variation - and the most serious cases - came in states where no law exists. In those states, two cases were classified at Level III, while two were Level IV (disciplinary action taken for running story) and one at Level VI (self-censorship of story ideas).
Looking at the second research question - how successful has the law been in resolving the censorship disputes - the students, advisers and principals in each of the three in-depth cases were all very aware of the law. Though none of the students or advisers in any of the three situations used the law in court, all used it for a verbal warning to the administration and all were successful in resolving the disputes without much more legal involvement beyond an initial consultation. (See Appendix D for full text of interviews).
Going beyond whether a student free expression law exists in the state provides further insight why censorship occurs. Of the three case studies evaluated here, the situation at Newman Smith was the most severe - the article was never printed and the non-tenured adviser did not get a contract renewal. At Nogales, the tenured adviser resigned from the newspaper but remains a teacher at the school with no fear of job loss. The adviser at Avon High School continues putting out an award-winning newspaper with support from the administration and has traveled the country speaking about the situation.
In all three cases, advisers had journalism experience and only at Avon - where the situation remains the best - did the administrator not have some journalism background. Also, the Avon administrator was the only one of the three to have less familiarity of student press law issues. However, Avon High School was the only one to have an editorial policy stating the rights and responsibilities of the newspaper and the limitations on the administration that was approved by the school board. Incidentally, the Avon story had been critical of the school and it remains the most amicable between the newspaper and the administration.
Among the student editors, all disagreed that the principal should have the right to review the newspaper but each believed the adviser should have some control and it should not be only a student-run operation. All the student editors also believed the main purpose of the student newspaper tended more toward student expression, and none thought the paper existed as a public relations tool for the school. "The paper should cover the school but also the community," said Marina Hennessy of Avon's The Echo. "It is important to cover what students are interested in and be watchdogs for students and the community. But it is also a form of expression through the writing and design."
As expected, the administrators agreed with the concept of Hazelwood, maintaining that if an administrator is accountable for all activities within the school, he or she ought to be able to be involved with the student newspaper. However, some were more hands-off than others. Marv Abrams at Nogales has an assistant principal review every paper before it goes to press because he is concerned about the journalistic quality that is being disseminated. Lee Alvoid does not review the paper, but when she does not hesitate to get involved when she hears about what is being covered. Richard Helton, a superintendent, knows that no administrator can do prior review of Avon High's newspaper because an editorial policy prohibiting such involvement is on the books with the school board. "The whole issue with me is that we hire a high school principal to run a school that is a tax-supported institution so he is accountable to the community and should have some input into the newspaper if it com
es down to it, but I hope it never gets to that point," Helton said.
While the students were more likely to support having a state law to back them up against censorship, principals but also advisers were more supportive of better educated teachers and administrators. Advisers want the full control of the paper, but each admitted that there are many uneducated advisers that let kids do poor journalism and ruin both the experience for the student and often invite censorship of the school newspaper. Administrators likewise believe their counterparts often abuse the rights granted through Hazelwood and support better 1st Amendment education of principals and superintendents.
"Preventive maintenance is better," Helton said. "We are in the business of education and allowing students and teachers an opportunity to grow. When we put restrictions on that, we hurt our mission. I am in favor of staff development, more education and understanding just what the news process is."
Alvoid believes better training in the principles of journalism and the benefits of the law will create more confident teachers and administrators. "The best way to ensure a good experience is the training. You have to trust kids to some degree," she said.
Conclusion
Censorship is not dead, unfortunately, in the student press. But the situation is not hopeless in spite of Hazelwood. These case studies suggest state student expression laws do seem to curtail some altercations between administrators and student newspapers. But the situation at Avon points out censorship situations can be worked through in spite of Hazelwood and the absence of state laws. And given the difficulty and amount of time devoted to reversing court decisions and changing the minds of legislators, the benefit of educating administrators as well as advisers should not go unnoticed. A non-scientific poll on a journalism education website recently reported the overwhelming majority of respondents chose education of school administrators as the best remedy for ending prior review and censorship of scholastic publications. Nearly half (49 percent) chose education over other solutions such as seeking state legislation (22 percent) or battling in court (5 percent).[109] Though the pol
l is not statistically significant, it carries a worthwhile message - the legal options require time and money that many journalism advisers do not want to risk and high school students do not have the time to pursue. The reality is that while a state student free expression law could add some credibility to a student editor's or adviser's position against censorship, the best protection against censorship is a relationship between the administration and the student newspaper that trusts the adviser and students to produce a professional, accurate publication that does not need censoring. This comes through better journalism training, formal editorial agreements between the newspaper and the administration and an understanding of the legal ramifications for violating that trust.
Appendix A
Press Law
Y= Yes
N= No
D=Debate (either currently or previously
Reason for censorship
1 = critical of school policy/action, administration, teachers
2 = controversial topic
3 = underground newspaper
4 = considered to be "sloppy" journalism generally
5 = content was libelous (false); obscene (vulgar, racist or sexist language); promoted violence or illegal activity; invasion of privacy
Censorship Definition
Level I = principal reviews the publication
Level II = principal threatens to pull an article if reported
Level III = principal prevents publication or halts distribution
Level IV = principal invokes disciplinary action after publication
Level V = adviser prevents story coverage because of fear
Level VI = students reject story idea or coverage because of fear of censorship
School (State) Press Law? Reason Definition
Avon High School (Indiana) D 1 Level III
Blue Spring South High (Missouri) D 1 and 4 Level III & IV
Bob Jones High School (Alabama) N 1 Level V & VI
Copperas Cove High School (Texas) N 1 Level III
Hall High School (Connecticut) D 1 Level III
Itawamba High School (Mississippi) N 1 Level III
Mountain View High School (Oregon) D 3 Level III
Newman Smith High School (Texas) N 2 Level III & IV
Niwot High School (Colorado) Y 1 Level II
Nogales High School (California) Y 2 and 4 Level III
North Platte High School (Nebraska) D 1 Level III
Northeast High School (Florida) N 1 Level II
Portsmouth High School (New Hampshire) D 1 Level III
Rio Mesa High School (California) Y 2 and 5 Level III
Whitman Middle School (Washington) N 4 Level IV
Appendix B
Factors to consider and compare
1. Number of years adviser in current position;
2. Whether the adviser had tenure;
3. Adviser's educational background (whether any journalism experience was included);
4. Adviser's knowledge of student press law issues, including Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and student expression laws;
5. Number of years principal at school
6. Number of years principal in district
7. Principal's educational background (if included any journalism education or experience)
8. Principal's knowledge of student press issues, including Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and student expression laws;
9. Student editor's knowledge of student press issues, including Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and student expression laws;
10. Whether an altercation between the school administration and the student newspaper had occurred previously (current or different administration);
11. Principal's opinions about news credibility of local professional media;
12. Whether an editorial policy existed at the school;
13. Whether the censored article was about a controversial topic and/or was critical of school policies or administration
Appendix C
Questions for Principals
BACKGROUND
Name?
Title?
School?
Size?
School/Community demographics?
Name of school newspaper?
How is it funded?
Educational background?
# of years in current position?
# of years at school?
# of years in district?
# of years in secondary education?
Journalism background (high school, college, professional)?
Legal background?
Does the school have an editorial policy?
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information from the student publication? Why/why not?
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? What is your knowledge of the law in your state?
What is your opinion of the concept behind the student free expression laws - that students have full 1st Amendment protection and prior review by an administrator is not legal?
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
How would you accomplish this?
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
What was your reaction?
How did students respond to you?
What kind of discussion/education took place before any action was taken?
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
Would you handle it the same way again?
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
What was the outcome?
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
Questions for Advisers
BACKGROUND
Name?
Title?
School?
Size?
School/Community demographics?
Name of school newspaper?
How is it funded?
Educational background?
# of years in current position?
# of years at school?
# of years in district?
# of years in secondary education?
Journalism background (high school, college, professional)?
Legal background?
Does the school have an editorial policy?
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information from the student publication? Why/why not?
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? What is your knowledge of the law in your state?
What is your opinion of the concept behind the student free expression laws - that students have full 1st Amendment protection and prior review by an administrator is not legal?
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
How would you accomplish this?
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
What was your reaction?
How did students respond to you?
What kind of discussion/education took place before any action was taken?
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
Would you handle it the same way again?
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
What was the outcome?
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
Questions for Students
BACKGROUND
Name?
School?
Year in school at the time?
Name of school newspaper?
How many years on staff?
Journalism background (Journalism class? Yearbook? Magazine?)
What are you doing currently?
What is the production process of your newspaper?
Brainstorm
Interview/write
Edit
Layout
Review
What is your newspaper editorial policy?
Does the adviser discourage story ideas b/c of censorship?
Prior review by principal?
Public forum?
Who has final authority?
Explain the organization and operation of your student newspaper?
# of students on staff?
How chosen? (any pre-requisites?)
# of issues per year?
How are stories decided and assigned?
What is the editing process (reporting, copy editing, layout)?
Adviser's role?
Funding for paper? (ads, school fund)?
Do you nix story ideas b/c fear of opposition from administration?
Example?
Would your principal allow stories on: teen pregnancy? Gangs? Drug use? Critical of school policy (ie: testing, attendance, teacher being fired, lawsuit against school) ?
What would be a story principal would not allow?
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
Are you familiar with state student expression laws?
Are you familiar with the law in your state? What is its status?
What is your understanding of the law's application to student press?
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information in the student press? Why?
Given the concept of the state expression law - restore full 1st Amendment protection to students and prohibit administrative review of the student press - what is your opinion of it? Do you think it would help support students?
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
What was your position and why?
What kind of discussion/education took place before any action was taken?
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
Would you handle it the same way again?
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
What was the outcome?
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
Appendix D
Interviews
AVON HIGH SCHOOL - Avon, Indiana
BACKGROUND
Name? Marina Hennessy
School? Avon High School
Year in school? Senior (this year)_junior during incident
Name of school newspaper? The Echo
How many years on staff? 3
Journalism background (Journalism class? Yearbook? Magazine?)
Intro to journalism course
Newspaper staff for 3 years
What is the production process of your newspaper?
Every month all students submit 20 story ideas, five specific ones with clippings.
I take ideas and make story assignments_2 to each student_they have one week to turn into me. I grade them and give them back_1 more week to rewrite and give to adviser
We slate it for a page and then the graphics editor and I decide who gets which page_we have 2-3 weeks to design pages and do info graphics_then we stay one night after school and finish layout.
We send it electronically to get printed
Everyone is required to sell one ad per issue_no money comes from the school_we sell about 20 ads per issue at $30-50 per ad
What is your newspaper editorial policy?
Does the adviser discourage story ideas b/c of censorship?
no
Prior review by principal?
No-ours is printed in the staff box and it says we have control and it guarantees us that if the principal wants to look at the paper we can say no. He could fight it, but it gives us a little leeway.
Public forum?
Yes_stated in editorial policy written about 10 years ago
Who has final authority?
The adviser with student editor input
Explain the organization and operation of your student newspaper?
# of students on staff? 18 writers/reporters; 3 editors, 12 designers
How chosen? (any pre-requisites?) intro course, apply, some input from staff
# of issues per year? 6-8
How are stories decided and assigned?
What is the editing process (reporting, copy editing, layout)?
Adviser's role? Look over all stories
Funding for paper? (ads, school fund)? advertising
Do you nix story ideas b/c fear of opposition from administration?
Example?
We try not to. I was talking to another adviser at another school at our state press association meeting and she told about an infographic they ran rating the performance of guidance counselors and she was saying she wished they didn't run that b/c she still has to work with those people. We try to be considerate of things like that and not print harsh things just to do it.
We ran an editorial this year about the stupidity of our football team's slogan "Defend the Valley" We're in Indiana_there is no valley. We got some backlash for that.
We make somebody mad every year.
Would your principal allow stories on: teen pregnancy? Gangs? Drug use? Critical of school policy (ie: testing, attendance, teacher being fired, lawsuit against school) ?
We have control of the paper and we have a new principal but he hasn't tried to do anything about changing that.
What would be a story principal would not allow?
N/A
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
What do you see as the role of the First Amendment for students? Student press?
To be accurate and responsible for what you print (ie: no libel) but should be able to run stories even if controversial. If I were in a school where the principal checked the paper, I wouldn't feel as if I were responsible_that just tells students that the principal is responsible and it doesn't teach them to be accountable, and they won't know what is going to be the best information to use.
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
Basically, just b/c you are student journalist, all of your constitutional rights are gone_it is a hopeless feeling. No matter how important the story, nothing can protect me. I think Hazelwood affects more students than they realize. Hazelwood isn't taught in school so students don't know about it and don't see things as censorship_it is just the way things have always been and instead of it seeing it as something they could change, they don't question if they are right to print it or say it.
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? yes
Are you familiar with the law in your state? What is its status?
I just signed up to be on a committee with IHSPA to study the issue. My understanding is if we don't get something passed in the next four years, we never will because of the democratic gov and Republican senate.
What is your understanding of the law's application to student press?
It would have made things a lot easier for us. But we have a good principal. There are schools where I know that would never have been printed. This law might make it easier to get the stories printed.
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review/restrain student publications?
No. I think it is the students' job to make sure articles are accurate. Principals don't have a journalism background.
High school publications are just like the professional press and should have the same 1st Amendment freedoms_students should be covered by the 1st Amendment
Does the Hazelwood principle apply to student newspapers which are deemed a public forum or to newspapers with an editorial policy giving student editors final authority?
No
Do state laws guaranteeing 1st Amendment protection to student newspapers override the Hazelwood decision?
I guess so
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
All of those things. The IHSPA is striving for getting requirements for journalism advisers. I think schools should want their advisers to learn about the profession_everything from photoshop to the First Amendment.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
It is to cover all of those things. It is important to cover what students are interested in and be watchdogs for students and the community. But it is also a form of expression through the writing and design. That is an art too.
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
I started talking to sophomore boys (about hazing) and realized it was a lot more serious than I thought_then finally and upper classmen said it happened.
I knew that our goal was to stop it. Originally the point of the story was to show that that doesn't happen here.
I went back to the AD (he had said go to coaches before talking to him). He finally said that what was going on during the football camp was the same things that happen at church camp.
I was appalled, but what could I say.
My adviser thought we had a legal obligation to talk to the principal about stopping it. It didn't seem like she got it, or at least that she didn't want to. We told her about the kid getting hit over the back with a broomstick and she said it probably wasn't that bad. After that, we felt like we had the go ahead to move with a story b/c if she didn't think there was a problem no one else would understand.
The AD kept coming to our office and asking us not to print the story_or at least to hold it since the team was going to the playoffs. We took all the suggestions and had a staff meeting. I think only a few students were in favor of holding the story (one was a girl whose father was part of the booster club for the football team and she was sort of caught btw that).
We offered not to do the story if the AD would call parents and say there was going to be an investigation. He wouldn't. But the day we went to press, Essex was called to the office.
My mom was just as involved as I was. I'd just get so mad. So my mom and I decided if Essex or the principal pulled the story we would go to the school board and then to the Indianapolis Star.
It was exciting but at the same time, it was scary. I knew if we didn't do something about hazing now with all the momentum, nothing would happen.
Would you handle it the same way again?
It was hard, but I'm glad I went through it. If nothing had changed I still wouldn't regret doing it. It has been a learning experience, but I don't think there is anything I could have done differently, except I wish I didn't cry when I interviewed the AD. He was being very condescending and I wish I didn't show how emotional the whole thing made me. I don't think the AD realized we would have the backing we did to stand our position (SPLC, Indianapolis Star editorial saying shame on the AD for not doing his job properly)
If Essex weren't tenured, we never would have done it.
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
SPLC, other advisers
What was the outcome?
The school cancelled the football camp and the coaches had meetings about better supervision of the kids. No kids were punished, which in a way is good but_.the same kids hit a shot-putter with a steel chair on the track team_.if they had been punished that might not have happened.
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
No changes to the newspaper. We have a new principal this year and he has talked to Essex about being responsible but hasn't done anything new. We have monthly meetings with him to tell him what we are doing and give him a heads up.
I think it is important to have a good relationship with the principal, plus he gives us good stories.
BACKGROUND
Name? Pam Essex
Title? English teacher - teaches sophomore English; Intro to Journalism; Newspaper
School? Size? Avon High School; 1400 students
Community demographics? Indianapolis suburb, one of fastest growing
Name of school newspaper? The Echo (one of oldest high school newspapers_1930s)
How is it funded?
Educational background? BA, Franklin College; MA, Indiana University
# of years in current position? 12 years
# of years at school? 12
# of years in district? 23 (12 years at Tri-West High School-also YB/news adviser)
# of years in secondary education? 23
Journalism background (high school, college, professional)?
Editor of high school yearbook;
Worked on college newspaper
Degree in English/journalism (BA) and secondary education (MA)
Legal background?
College course on media law
23 years experience advising - "I always wanted to be an adviser..just loved working on my paper
Does the school have an editorial policy?
Yes_have a manual with an editorial policy that was drawn up years ago during the Hazelwood time with advice from the SPLC_policy (includes ad policy and obit policy) says the newspaper is an open public forum_school board approved.
"We're told that it would help us in court, but I don't know for sure. We have never used it. I came close to this case. Before we had it, a kid tried to sell an ad to Planned Parenthood and the parents went to the school board to block it. The school board didn't block it, but the principal said if it had been up to him, he would blocked it. I had no problem with it, but I had ministers call me up and tell me they were praying for me because I am going to hell."
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
What do you see as the role of the First Amendment for students? Student press?
Because of Hazelwood, the principal can dictate that freedom. I hope that never happens here. When our new principal came, he told me that every school he interviewed with wanted him to review the high school newspaper before it was printed. He told me he had no intent of doing that b/c he trusted my judgment. But if he should ever lose that trust_who knows.
And I think that happens a lot because principals are not trained in journalism and the first amendment. And I think it is getting worse b/c now many of the new high school advisers were on their high school newspaper staffs under Hazelwood so they just accept it as normal.
But I think the 1st Amendment gives students the right to publish whatever they want. But they have to learn responsibility, and I think with that comes making decisions about what to print.
Role of the high school newspaper adviser?
My role is to help the students make the best choice and to look at their options. I also believe in having a good working relationship with the principal and if there is going to be something controversial, I think you should tell the principal.
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
The case lets the school censor if articles are researched well or reported well (but not just because they disagree with the information)
Are you familiar with state student expression laws?
Yes.
Are you familiar with the law in your state? What is its status?
Yes. Tried it for a few years here.
What is your understanding of the law's application to student press?
I think it would really help. A teacher without tenure might have been afraid; the law might give them a little protection against losing their job.
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review/restrain student publications? Why?
No. I don't think they have a right to review.
Does the Hazelwood principle apply to student newspapers which are deemed a public forum or to newspapers with an editorial policy giving student editors final authority?
I'm not sure. The SPLC says if it goes to court, the editorial policy would save it from censorship, but I'm not eager to be the test case.
/But my daughter is on the news staff at another school and her principal reviews the paper, and I would fight on her behalf. She wants to be editor.
Do state laws guaranteeing 1st Amendment protection to student newspapers override the Hazelwood decision?
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
I think individual states need to work around overt censorship like Hazelwood.
We also need more education of principals and teachers in general about the 1st Amendment. It is amazing to me the number of teachers who think students should be censored. (and these are social studies and political science classes.
It really bothers me that there is so much ignorance and fear of the student press.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
It is not to be a pr piece_the principal can do his own newsletter if that's what he wants. I think it is the same as a profeesional newspaper - the purpose is to inform, persuade and entertain.
Other comments?
We make a big deal about awards here_always run a story in the Indianapolis Star about awards won and the principal loves to brag about it. Last year 2 students won $42,000 worth of scholarship money.
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
The kids were brainstorming ideas and they had read about Carmel High School where an incident of hazing occurred and the coach was charged with a crime for not reporting it (Indianapolis Star). There is a rivalry between the two high schools, so the staff wanted to do a story on how hazing doesn't happen here_just fun stuff.
Marina Hennessy investigated it and pretty much that was what she was finding, until she talked to the football captain and he said that at camp (before school starts in fall) they line up all the freshmen and beat them.
I looked at it and said better go talk to the football coach. He got mad but didn't deny it. He just said it was impossible for him to supervise 80 kids. So then we talked to the athletic director and he said it was just boys being boys_no different than church camp.
Then Marina talked to a sophomore who said he had a broomstick broken over his back and he was urinated on. He was going to be on the record but at the last second, his mom called and didn't want us to use it.
At the time we ran the story, the football team was ranked third in the state and in the playoffs. The athletic director did not want us to print the story then b/c he was afraid it would hurt the team. The paper came out on Tuesday; on Friday we lost.
As a staff we decided that our goal was not just to publish (they didn't want to make their school look bad) but they felt the hazing had to stop. So they took the folder of information (including comments from the trainer) to the principal and asked the school to investigate, and she said she would have to think about it. At that point, the kids knew she was not going to investigate. So we worked on the story, sent drafts to the SPLC and I let the principal know what we were doing.
We started sending the paper (electronically to printer, one page at a time) and we purposely sent that page first. Then the principal called me to her office and the athletic director and coach were there and asked me not to run a story b/c they were investigating it.
I told her I was not pulling the story and that Marina Hennessy's mother had already told me if I pulled it or the principal pulled it she was going first to the school board and second to the Indianapolis Star.
So Joan Schafer (principal) asked us to rewrite it_we pulled the quotes from the coach and AD and let them write prepared statements, and we pulled a quote from a kid.
The result of the story is that the football team no longer has the overnight camp. The football coach also resigned in February_whether this had anything to do with it I don't know. When the new principal came, he and the AD had meetings with coaches about leaving kids unattended. He also placed a gag order on the team_but when we did a story about helmets this year, he did talk to us.
What was your reaction?
After the meeting with the principal to do an investigation, I knew nothing would change, so I wasn't going to pull the story. And if I had, I know Marina's mother would have taken the story to the Star and the school board so it was an easy decision.
In my classes, students couldn't believe everyone was so surprised by the report b/c they all knew about it. I think the attitude of the players is that it was done to them so it is their rite of passage to carry it on as upperclassmen on the new players. I believe if we had not done the story nothing would have changed.
How did students respond to you?
They were all for printing the story once they realized nothing would change if they didn't go through with it.
What kind of discussion/education took place before any action was taken?
Meetings about story, talked to principal, meetings with AD
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
We got a letter from the Quarterback Club (booster) demanding an apology_we ran it as a letter to the editor.
A lot of coverage_about 40 minutes of television coverage on the issue (We tried to keep our investigation quiet but someone leaked it to Channel 8) and the Indianapolis Star did a front-page story the next day plus an editorial
Marina and I have been all over the country to talk about it.
Would you handle it the same way again?
I thought it was real important to run the story then. I was not happy to have to change parts of it, but it was still a very strong story. The next card I would have played would be the "open forum" issue but we didn't have to do that. It was funny, I wish we had punched up the lead. We purposefully made it bland so the principal wouldn't think it was sensational, but she still went on record saying the story was sensationalized.
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
SPLC and posted updates on the JEA listserve and got a lot of responses from other advisers with advice
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
No changes to newspaper operations_new principal (Joan Schafer fired later in year for shoplifting curtains from a local store.
BACKGROUND
Name? Richard Helton
Title? Superintendent
School? Avon High School
Size? 5000
School/Community demographics?
20,000 population, suburb of Indianaopolis
mostly white, middle class
conservative and very Republican (but he didn't say that!)
Name of school newspaper? The Echo
How is it funded?
Educational background?
BA Hanover College
MA Indiana University
EDS Indiana University
PhD Indiana State University
# of years in current position? 11 years
# of years at school?
# of years in district?
# of years in secondary education?
Taught English 7 years (no journalism)
Asst. principal 6 years
Central office 1 year
Sup at Milon 5 years
Sup at Avon 11 years
Journalism background (high school, college, professional)?
None
Legal background?
2 school law courses
Does the school have an editorial policy?
We have more of a procedure that Pam developed but I think it helps. It is pretty liberal for Midwest standards, I think, but it sends a signal that some things will not be tolerated.
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
I have no opposition to reporting that is based on facts; as long as you report the facts, you can't dispute that. We have some guidelines (done before this situation) that say as long as the newspaper respects everybody and operates within community standards, then we (admin) will respect the rights of the newspaper. We are confident enough in our adviser and staff to do that.
Even though we have to respect the 1st A rights of all, also have to respect rights of others. If it is factual reporting and not violating the rights of others, then it is fine.
What about controversial/negative stories on administrative policies, the school, etc.?
We have been on record about that. As long as the report is fair; if it becomes a witch hunt and statements prove untrue_but I believe Pam Essex sets guidelines and drills it home that reporting must be factual.
Admittedly, if an issue majorly impacted the school and I didn't want it, I probably would not say anything.
I suspect stories have been held, but far be it from me to do that. I happen to have a lot of trust in Pam Essex.
What if there is a hot-button issue_would you feel the need to check on the paper before printed?
I think we have the confidence of Pam Essex to let her make the decisions and that would be the approach we would use with all topics.
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
I know of the case but am not familiar with it.
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information from the student publication? Why/why not?
I suspect if that were the case, it would prohibit some growth. You have to allow kids to know you have some trust and faith in them. Everybody should be accountable - including newspaper reporters and editors - but I am accountable as well and I should be, so consequently, others should be.
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? What is your knowledge of the law in your state?
I attended a seminar at a national conference on it.
What is your opinion of the concept behind the student free expression laws - that students have full 1st Amendment protection and prior review by an administrator is not legal?
The whole issue with me is that we hire a high school principal and expect him to be within guidelines of the community and district, so he should have some input if it comes down to it. The school is a tax-supported institution and it puts money into the newspaper, so it should have some accountability from the principal_BUT I hope it never gets to that point (principal involved)
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
Preventive maintenance is better. We are in the business of education and allowing students and teachers an opportunity to grow. When we put restrictions on that, we hurt our mission. I am in favor of staff development, more education and understanding what the news process is.
Do you think administrators want to restrict freedom?
I don't think that is true at all. Some want to clamp, but I think most are fair.
I think the Midwest is pretty conservative compared to West and East Coast where they are probably much more liberal.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
The story involved interviews with members of the football team plus coaches and the athletic director. I wasn't involved in the story_the decisions were made by the principal (**note: Principal Joan Schafer could not be interviewed since she was fired for shoplifting and no longer in the district)
I was aware of the situation and knew of the article coming up, but I can't tell you how I learned about the situation.
I think we've been pretty liberal with our newspapers_and this is a really good high school newspaper. We've had a really good response from our adviser. I'm not sure people always agree with stance administrators take, but we have a good understanding.
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
I didn't get any personally, but I'm sure the principal and coach did. There was some coverage in the Indianapolis Star, but I don't know about much else
Would you handle it the same way again?
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
None from the school or district
What was the outcome?
The article was changed a little
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
There was no high school football camp this year _ coach resigned (not b/c of this) but he let it be known hazing would not be tolerated
NEWMAN SMITH HIGH SCHOOL -- Carrollton, Texas
BACKGROUND
Name? Chrissy Ragan
School? Newman Smith High School
Year in school at the time? senior
Name of school newspaper? The Odyssey
How many years on staff? 1 year
Journalism background (Journalism class? Yearbook? Magazine?)
Intro to journalism course junior year
Yearbook senior year
What are you doing currently?
Sophomore in journalism at UT-Austin
Goal to be magazine reporter/writer
What is the production process of your newspaper?
Brainstorm story ideas
Group discussion about what type coverage_students get dibs on assign.
Turn draft into student editor
Turn final into adviser (Ms. Clemmer)
"constant process of editing"
What is your newspaper editorial policy?
Does the adviser discourage story ideas b/c of censorship? no
Prior review by principal? no
Public forum? No formal policy
Who has final authority? Usually adviser_that's why we were shocked when she censored this article b/c she usually let us do whatever we wanted_Lee Alvoid was pretty good about that actually
Explain the organization and operation of your student newspaper?
# of students on staff?
15-20
How chosen? (any pre-requisites?)
Had to apply but not that hard
# of issues per year?
6-8/year
How are stories decided and assigned?
Staff discussion
What is the editing process (reporting, copy editing, layout)?
Adviser's role?
Read everything, made suggestions
Funding for paper? (ads, school fund)?
Ads paid for entire newspaper
Do you nix story ideas b/c fear of opposition from administration? No never.
Example?
Would your principal allow stories on: teen pregnancy? Gangs? Drug use? Critical of school policy (ie: testing, attendance, teacher being fired, lawsuit against school)?
Pregnancy? Yes
Gangs? Yes (we did that)
Drugs? Yes (we did that)
School policies? yes
What would be a story principal would not allow?
I can't think of any_she was pretty good actually_that's why we were shocked she didn't let this one
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
I think students should write about whatever they want b/c if you are thinking about it, then probably other students are too. And the more adults censor it, the more sheltered we'll be.
What if students print something libelous or harmful?
I think as a staff you'll know when you are overstepping the bounds, but the key is definitely a strong adviser. Then there is no reason for censorship. Ms. Clemmer was the best. She stood behind us and she guided us. She made me do a balanced story and get all sides.
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
We researched it to do our censorship editorial but I had studied it the year before in our journalism class.
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? no
Are you familiar with the law in your state? What is its status? no
What is your understanding of the law's application to student press?
Sounds good
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information in the student press? Why?
I think, ultimately, it is the adviser who should have control. I really don't think the principal should come into it b/c it is the adviser's specific job to know journalism and to know what is going on in the school and with students.
Ms. Clemmer was a journalism major; she knew the rights; she knew what made a good story_having a good adviser definitely helps
That's why we were surprised Dr. Alvoid censored it b/c she was a journalism major at UT also, so we thought she would have a more liberal view.
Given the concept of the state expression law - restore full 1st Amendment protection to students and prohibit administrative review of the student press - what is your opinion of it? Do you think it would help support students?
Definitely agree with that_that's what a paper should do - reflect student life and if you censor it, you are not doing the job.
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
All 3_definitely educated adviser.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
It is to reflect what is going on in student life and to inform about that. It should be student-run and student-read.
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
In English class, one of my friends (Brooke) was a lesbian and she told me about starting a support group for Gay/Lesbian students and she mentioned there was a petition going around to request formation from the school board. They had gotten a sponsor (a counselor) but were in the process of doing paperwork to submit to school board for approval. I thought, "hmmm_I might do a story on this since it is new" I talked to Ms. Clemmer about it, and from the beginning we were kinda thinking this might go on the front page.
So I did some research about these groups forming at other schools around the country; Ms.Clemmer told me I needed a balance story, so I went to talk to principal and a school board member. The sb member was real vague, and I think my interview was the first time it had ever caught his attention. Lee Alvoid was mostly concerned about the timeliness of it since they weren't a group yet, she wanted us to wait until the next fall semester to do the story.
At first I was really mad b/c I had worked really hard on the story, but I can see where she was coming from, but I think she was mainly worried about dealing with all the flack from the community_not worried that the story wasn't newsworthy enough. I still thought it was more timely then, rather than into the next fall, b/c it was when the group was trying to organize.
Dr. Alvoid cited some rule that said she had the right to pull the article. Matt Irwin, one of the staff writers, contacted one TV station and by that night all of them were calling us. I was on the news that night and on a radio station the next morning. He really started the media frenzy_he knew his rights.
As a staff this was a story we decided we were going to fight for. So in the next issue, we ran an editorial about the censorship but we couldn't even mention the topic_just said a controversial issue that students were never going to get to hear about b/c administration was keeping it out of the school paper.
Dr. Alvoid said she intended for the story to run the next fall, but I don't think that was really legit and The Odyssey never did run a story about it.
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
Article in Metrocrest News, Dallas Morning News, TV stations_.covered it as a censorship case.
Would you handle it the same way again?
yes
BACKGROUND
Name? Angel Clemmer Jenkins
Title? Journalism teacher
Currently columnist/graphics designer/public relations for Today Newspapers
School? Newman Smith High School
Size? 2000-2500 students
School/Community demographics?
Affluent suburb of Dallas
Name of school newspaper? The Odyssey
How is it funded? Advertising_$800/issue, extra money for banquet, pizza, etc.
Educational background?
BA in journalism from UT-Austin
Teacher certification from UT-Arlington
# of years in current position?
3 years as adviser; 5th year at Today Newspapers
# of years at school? 3
# of years in district? 3
# of years in secondary education?3
Journalism background (high school, college, professional)?
High school newspaper
College newspaper
had been a reporter and news editor at Today Newspapers for three years before going into teaching (high school journalism adviser had always thought she'd enjoy teaching/advising so was looking for job openings for her)_began teaching with emergency certification_joked that by the time she got certified, she got fired!
Legal background?
Media law course
Does the school have an editorial policy?
Not at first, but after this, the assistant principal started reviewing the paper
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
It goes back to the adviser. Students should have freedom of expression but they are young and need supervision. And it isn't so much being young, but being inexperienced. They aren't ready for all the decisions because they haven't thought about the consequences. Even at a real newspaper, you have an editor and managing editor to check for rookie mistakes.
I do think students deserve more freedom than they are allowed in most cases and I do think administrators get away with a lot of unnecessary censorship.
Some of my kids came away from this experience thinking they just needed to grow up and become the boss and do whatever they wanted. That's not the lesson we should be teaching them.
And sometimes some of the best lessons are learning from mistakes. Occasionally, the staff would talk about an issue and I would remind them of potential consequences but they'd do the story anyway. And when they'd get some heat, they'd ask me why I let them do it. And I'd tell them, "remember when I pointed this out to you?"
You have to have a good adviser to supervise.
I had one student who was a little hard to handle but he did a story that won 3rd place in the national scholastic press association contest for his investigative report on the drinking water. A biology class had done studies on the water and found out that there was a high content of bacteria. The student interviewed the class and teacher but also the janitors and discovered they were polishing the drinking fountains with a polish but not a cleanser. He even interviewed the school board and eventually the school changed the cleanser. But the principal got mad b/c it made the school look bad, so he was discouraged for doing a good report.
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
I thought it was very difficult to teach under Hazelwood b/c it says if not in the interest of the student body they could censor and to me it was not clear enough. The principal and I could sit down together and read it and interpret it completely different. A principal could hold an article and say it was in the best interest of the students but it wasn't it was censorship. To me, if it is not too sensitive, then high school students are ready for it, even if controversial.
But I just think it allows for too much subjectivity and is too broad.
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information from the student publication? Why/why not?
No, I believe you hire an adviser for that purpose. Unfortunately, I know not all advisers are qualified.
But you hire teachers and advisers to do a job and you don't review every lesson plan a teacher has but just because the newspaper may be sensitive, administrators want to go a step further with it.
I don't think it is a bad law but it is too vague. The principal should not be the one. In a perfect world, the journalism adviser would have a journalism background and would be trusted to make the decisions.
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? What is your knowledge of the law in your state?
Not familiar
What is your opinion of the concept behind the student free expression laws - that students have full 1st Amendment protection and prior review by an administrator is not legal?
I guess it goes back to the adviser's qualifications. It is scary for me to think - with some of the advisers I have known - of giving students total freedom. Again, in a perfect world, if you had a qualified adviser, students wouldn't need the principal's involvement. But students are young and need supervision and I think they want it. The students valued the principal's opinion and would have listened to her if she could have given them a good reason why not to print but just to say we are across the street from a church wasn't enough.
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
I think the best route would be to require/offer journalism education to all newspaper advisers.
How would you accomplish this?
I don't know. I guess every district should have a policy.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
I think it is a tool for students to communicate and educate about what is going on in their world - which is high school - but also outside their world.
When given the opportunity, I think people would be amazed at the caliber of work students can do. I think Hazelwood hampers that, depending on the administration.
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
There had been controversy throughout and the funny thing about this story was that Chrissy was not a rabble rouser. She was approached by a friend about the gay kids starting a club. Chrissy thought it would be a good news story since it would be the first club like that at the school. It was not like "let's stir something up" but it evolved into this big thing after we were told we couldn't do it.
I really think it was more of a power struggle between me and the administration than about the topic.
Chrissy wrote the story and Lee Alvoid said it was not a topic this school should cover. We were right across the street from a church and she didn't think the community would like it. She also told us it was at the end of the school year and they weren't going to become a club so why don't we just do the story the next year. But we had gotten the impression from the counselors that it was never going to be a club - that the board wouldn't allow it - so we figured we should do it now b/c next fall it wouldn't be any more of a story. Plus we thought it was story why it was not going to be a club. There had been a petition from the students to the school board to allow the club, so it was a story.
All I remember is a lot of turmoil and not a lot of rationale. By this point, I had been at odds with the administration, so I told the kids it was up to them to fight. I think that was upsetting to the administration b/c it seemed to them like I turned the kids against them.
Would you handle it the same way again?
There are definitely things I would have done differently, but I don't regret any of the stories I chose to run. And I think it was important for the students to interact with the administration and have to stand up for why they wanted the story and why they thought it was newsworthy. Although I think by that point, the issue of news was lost.
If there were ever red flags for me, I would sit down with the staff and we would discuss our stance with the administration. I tried to make them make their own decisions. But with this story, I didn't see a red flag. I don't think the administration thought we thought through issues.
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
Students contacted the student press law center
What was the outcome?
Contract not renewed after that year.
It is ironic b/c the principal considered herself a journalist. She had gone to UT-Austin and worked on the newspaper. I think she felt conflicted between wanting to give students enough control for good journalism but not wanting to lose the direct control over them. When I started encouraging students to dig into deeper issues, she didn't like it. But I think our conflict was a lot of personal conflict over power and ego.
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
The assistant principal reviews the paper now. And in one case we did a center spread on sex issues so there was a story on date rape and incest. He initially ok'd the date rape story but not incest b/c he said date rape happens. So he was implying the incest hadn't happened. So I told the students to make a case and show him why it was a story. So they did, and he let them keep it in.
BACKGROUND
Name? Lee Alvoid
Title? principal
School? Size? Newman Smith High School, 1 of 4 high schools
2000 students
50% minority (1/3 Asian; 1/3 African American; 1/3 Hispanic)
middle class, blue collar, low-income ("real slice of life")
Community demographics? Suburb of Dallas (>100,000)
Name of school newspaper? The Odyssey
How is it funded? $$ from advertising and school budget (tech support to go digital)
Educational background?
BA in English/History (1st 2 years in journalism) from UT-Austin
MA in 2ndary Education from SMU
PhD in reading from Texas Women's University
# of years in current position?
9th year at Newman Smith as principal
# of years in district? 32
8 years as middle school principal; taught middle school 11 years before getting into administration; been at central office as consultant, high school asst principal, head of all English curriculum.
# of years in secondary education? 32
Journalism background (high school, college, professional)?
Co-editor of paper in San Antonio
High school newspaper - day before JFK assassinated, 50 Texas high school journalists invited to press conference with president_Lee asked him a question.
Worked on college newspaper some_ "way too timid to be as aggressive as needed to be to be a journalist"
Legal background?
School law course
Does the school have an editorial policy?
Not really_they are good about coming to interview me, and I've used that as a tool to educate them. I think that's part of my role. I've been principal for 9 years, and I always teach one class period on the rights and responsibilities of students, including due process.
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
What do you see as the role of the First Amendment for students? Student press?
I think the topics should be somewhat school related or issues that are relevant to high school students. Occasionally you'll get a group that wants to launch off into some cause but it should still have some relevance (ie: sex, drugs/alcohol). Occasionally they want to write about some disciplinary action; I just ask that they handle the issue and not focus on the person. For example, this year, there was a 9th grade student who held 2 classes hostage in a lock-down for 3 hours. Nobody got hurt and he was apprehended without harm. The news did an in-depth story about that situation but not about the kid. The staff was a little mad about that b/c wanted to do more than I would let them. There were some conflicts over confidentiality.
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
If there is anything that could disrupt the educational process at school then I (principal) have the right to prohibit publication.
I think at the high school level I'm a real advocate for student rights, not just a free press. If students use the process, we can resolve conflicts. It is when they don't use the system that things blow up. (that has made some teachers mad)
My associate principal was a Dallas Morning News reporter for about 10 years before going to teaching.
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and restrict information from a student newspaper?
Yes, because the newspaper is in an educational arena under the guise of a curriculum. Somebody has to look after the students and say ok or not ok within board policy. The times I have asked them to rewrite stories it has been because 1) inappropriate language/offensive or 2) it was a confidentiality issue.
And that happens in the real world_you always have an editor-in-chief that is making you follow community standards. And where Hazelwood talks about the community of the school, I think I have the right to make sure the newspaper follows certain standards.
I do think administrators abuse it, but I also think that could be challenged in court, even under Hazelwood b/c that precedent is more of a safeguard against disruption than a lid on free speech. But administrators do make the mistake of censoring. Students do need to experience free speech.
Are you familiar with state student expression laws?
Not really.
What is your opinion of the concept behind the student free expression laws - basically overriding the controls placed on student publications via Hazelwood?
As an administrator when you are held accountable for everything that happens on campus, you can't take that control away. I'm sure the reason for the laws is abuse of Hazelwood, but I'm not hung up on it [Hazelwood]. So much of the inappropriate stuff is because the sponsor didn't catch it. Newspaper is still a class and you have to have some restraints.
I could live with the law either way b/c I think it is more important to have a good sponsor and a strong board policy.
For example, we had a wrestler who blew up and punched out a window. The newspaper had pictures and ran the story. It ended up being very harmful. In that instance, the newspaper needed an adviser to guide their decision away from publishing something harmful.
"The newspaper should be an educated experience, not the free press."
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
The best way to ensure a good experience is the adviser/administrator. The issue is the training. _maybe we could form a coalition btw the Nat'l Assoc. of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and the Journalism Education Association (JEA) and address the problems of training of principals and administrators so we don't end up in court.
I think my journalism background certainly plays into my position on this. We (admin) need to know what we believe about student rights and know what it looks like so we can have a policy. You have to trust kids to some degree. And part of it is just kids being kids.
Administrators get student press rights in their school law course (ed admin degree) and in Texas there is a good seminar on legal issues every year.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
It should have appropriate articles and issues. I don't mind the newspaper going into controversial topics as long as it doesn't hurt kids
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
Most of my reaction was to protect the gay kids. I was real clear that they have a right to be a club, but they never filled out the paperwork to officially form as a club. I asked the [newspaper staff] to wait to do a story until the club actually formed.
What was your reaction?
I knew it wasn't going to fly well anyway b/c of the nature of the story. But the staff went bezerko and thought I was trying to censor them. I asked the staff to write the article the next fall when the group was an official club. Of course they didn't b/c the group never formed as a formal organization. Instead they operate more as a support group. And the reason they didn't want to form as a formal group was b/c of the potential backlash. (One of their issues was if they formed as a club, they would have a picture in the yearbook_and what if a student's parents didn't know?) Now they have posters on the wall with rainbows so people know where to find them, but they are not an official organization. It is not too overt but if you are in the gay community, you certainly know what to do. The gay kids felt a little exploited, and that was part of my deal with pushing to do a story that wasn't newsworthy until the group actually formed.
What was the staff reaction?
They were angry, and they put a dig about it in an editorial. But I don't really mind. That doesn't bother me. I did that myself as a student journalist. And there was a lot of unflattering stuff. They were not in the Lee Alvoid fan club.
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
It got sensationalized. The student press rights people were mad. The gay community was mad b/c it thought I wasn't allowing the students to form a club. The Dallas Morning News covered it. Advocacy groups had it all over their web sites. The funny thing is I am probably more open-minded than most. It lasted about 4-6 weeks (into the summer)
Would you handle it the same way again?
Yes. I was OK with where it all went b/c I could answer all the questions about my action. I started out in journalism in high school and then at UT-Austin.
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
I didn't call anybody, but I know the students contacted the Student Press Law Center. I didn't seek any legal advice b/c I am very familiar with my role under Hazelwood. I did have a Dallas Morning News reporter tell them that even at his level in the business and in a free press, he still has an editorial policy.
What was the outcome?
No story on the gay club but an editorial.
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
Under this teacher's tenure I started reviewing the paper, but it was for other situations as well. I reviewed it for inappropriate language_we had a contentious relationship for the 3 years she was here
NOGALES HIGH SCHOOL - LaPuente, California
BACKGROUND
Name? Alex Matal
School? Nogales High School
Year in school at the time? senior
Name of school newspaper? The Scroll
How many years on staff? 3
Journalism background (Journalism class? Yearbook? Magazine?)
Intro to journalism
Newspaper
What are you doing currently?
Senior in high school_no longer on staff
What is your newspaper editorial policy?
Now he reviews every issue but we used to just take him the first copy
Explain the organization and operation of your student newspaper?
# of students on staff? 21 beginning of year; 12 now
How chosen? (any pre-requisites?)
used to have to apply but now a certificate program so anyone can get in
# of issues per year? Usually 8; this year only 4 so far
How are stories decided and assigned?
Brainstorm during story board
Each person assigned a teacher as a "beat"
Page editors assign stories after selected
What is the editing process (reporting, copy editing, layout)?
Rough draft to page editor and adviser
Final draft to page editor and adviser
Adviser's role?
Reads every story; discusses with principal
Funding for paper? (ads, school fund)?
$2500 from district for the year; sell ads (sell about $2600 per issue)
Do you nix story ideas b/c fear of opposition from administration?
No if they don't like it, that's why we do it. I like to get confrontation_or at least stuff that students should know about but that administrators wouldn't want them to know about
Example?
Drag racing; drug-sniffing dogs
Would your principal allow stories on: teen pregnancy? Gangs? Drug use? Critical of school policy (ie: testing, attendance, teacher being fired, lawsuit against school) ?
Teen sex? Yes
Drugs? Probably no
Gangs? Probably no (nothing that would make school look bad)
Testing policy? Yes
Teacher fired? Probably not
What would be a story principal would not allow?
Anything that would make the school look bad_no way!
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
Students should have the same rights as any major newspaper reporter. They shouldn't be able to print libelous information.
Students shouldn't have complete free reign_that's too far. Our education code says students edit the stories and the adviser oversees and maintains professional standards of English and journalism. I agree with that. But it shouldn't be the principal doing it. That is why the adviser is there.
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
I have learned everything I can about the 1st Amendment, and I think Hazelwood is very vague about what is ok. I think it is unconstitutional for ad administrator to review the paper.
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? no
Are you familiar with the law in your state? What is its status?
I know California is one of the most liberal states for student press and has some of the strongest protection for student rights.
What is your understanding of the law's application to student press?
Students have same rights as everybody else. In our letter to the administrators after the drag racing story, we referenced the state code.
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information in the student press? Why?
No way. That's what we have an adviser for.
Given the concept of the state expression law - restore full 1st Amendment protection to students and prohibit administrative review of the student press - what is your opinion of it? Do you think it would help support students?
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
I guess the best thing would be to get Congress to pass a federal law restoring student rights_or maybe make the Constitution stronger with another amendment.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
To let students be aware of what is going on in the community that relates to them, including the school but also student life generally.
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
I did a story on backyard wrestling - kids wrestling in the streets_they have refs but it is pretty rough - because there are students in our school who are involved. The principal thought we were supporting it, but we were just doing a story about it. I took the newspaper to the principal to check it (already printed but not distributed) and he said ok to page one and then opened to the wrestling story and saw the picture (not even anybody in our school) and said that was unacceptable b/c it didn't have anything to do with our students. So I took it back to Mr. Lofthouse and he and I and another editor went back to the principal, who had typed a letter about why "the mattress article" shouldn't be in the paper and should be censored: "1) our paper prints campus news, not nonsense; 2) article has nothing to do with Nogales; 3) the school district doesn't recognize this organization; 4) this activity is probably illegal" And then the principal also went ballistic over a misspelled word in a headline. And I disagree with his second point b/c the students make up the school and all parts of student life deserve to be covered in the student paper, even if it is outside of school activities.
Mr. Lofthouse wouldn't take this crap, so he quit and the principal had a hard time finding somebody else. And the principal asked to review the paper for good English and journalism standards.
What kind of discussion/education took place before any action was taken?
Our staff contacted the SPLC (we had done so the year before when a girl sued the paper for libel based on an ASB election fraud story) and we were all upset, we were like, "what the heck?"
Mr. Lofthouse was always informing us about our rights. Some wanted to take legal action and some wanted to let it go. Then this year (Sept. 2000) we wanted to write a drag racing story b/c a bunch of students were doing it and the principal didn't even let us write it (just an idea) b/c he said it had nothing to do with the school. So we called the lawyer our previous editor had talked to since the principal was censoring our story ideas. The lawyer told us to write a letter to the principal explaining that our rights according to the California state law were being violated. And it was resolved. The principal agreed. But we still didn't write the drag racing story.
This spring (March) I wanted to write a story about drug-sniffing dogs at the school. At first it was one-sided so the new adviser told me I had to interview the principal if I wanted to do the story. The principal was really vague and biased. So the adviser went through another editor to change my story to make it sound like the principal was good. So I went back and changed it. After that, the adviser went down the class roll and "fired" several students. Since I wasn't officially enrolled he told me I was off the staff b/c I wasn't officially enrolled in the class.
What changes have been put in effect as a result?
New adviser_Mr. Lofthouse recommended another teacher who was interested in doing the newspaper and offered to team teach for one year and then hand it over since Mr. Abrams claimed he wanted someone with journalism experience. But the principal didn't hire Mr. Lofthouse's recommendation and instead gave it to another teacher with no experience either and not even Mr. Lofthouse as a mentor.
BACKGROUND
Name? Lloyd Lofthouse
Title? teacher
School? Nogales High School
Size? 2400 students
School/Community demographics?
LA suburb, pretty rough neighborhood, mixed minorities (67% Latino)
Three sides of school surrounded by low-income families and gangs
One side is the hills with $1/2 million homes
District has its own police force on campus
Overzealous principal
Name of school newspaper? The Scroll (monthly plus 1-page weekly for a while; plus a Spanish language edition for a while but it just to be too hard, too much.
How is it funded?
School budget ($2600/year and ads $2000/year)
Educational background?
BA in journalism from Fresno State University
# of years in current position? 11
# of years at school? 11
# of years in district? 11
# of years in secondary education? 24
Worked in industry for two years; been teaching since 1976
Started at toughest junior high in the district then to toughest high school
Now at a rough high school the last 11 years (I like those kind of kids best)
Taught journalism for 10 years ("my kids have to work their butts off to get an A, but now there's no training of the staff. Mine had to take intro to journalism within the context of the newspaper class. They published in other publications as well as The Tribune (local paper), AP wire and GRIP magazine.
Journalism background (high school, college, professional)?
My interest in journalism was initially to improve my writing.
Graphics editor in college and wrote some stories
Legal background?
I probably took a media law course
Does the school have an editorial policy?
As a courtesy we would take the first copy of the printed version (before passed out) to the principal, but I never intended to give him a license to control the paper. It turned into a nightmare.
I would always look at the first draft of stories but not the final. I trusted them to make the changes I asked. There is a basic trust. How many times do they want me to check it_to make sure its flawless?? It is a student paper, what do you expect?
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
The law does give administrators the right to sit down and talk about what is in the paper. But I think it should be that students have the right to report anything they want except what is prohibited by the state law (libel, obscenity, call for violence).
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
Yes
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information from the student publication? Why/why not?
It is wrong for principals to review because it becomes too much of a PR thing_principals are just interested in making the school look lilly white because that keeps attendance up, and funding is all based on attendance.
A PR pamphlet is for the school district to do, not the student newspaper. You can't print we have gangs or drugs_we are asked to cover up all realities and that is bull shit.
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? What is your knowledge of the law in your state?
Very familiar_I lived with it for a year. I wanted to know if he was right when he took away 1st Amendment privileges.
What is your opinion of the concept behind the student free expression laws - that students have full 1st Amendment protection and prior review by an administrator is not legal?
Even with the state law, it is like fighting a rhino - once they are moving, there is nothing that will stop them. Even with four lawyers, the California teacher's Association , the SPLC saying he was violating the state law, he kept moving. All that other was unimportant to him.
My advice to the kids was to fight it, but some of the main students graduated and then just dropped the ball. And now he censors every paper.
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
It would help if the state would get involved. The attorney general should jump in and help kids. Our governor should support this and enforce this. Why do the kids have to find their own lawyer? If it is a state law, the state ought to be defending it.
Education is worth doing but I don't know if it would really work with administrators. Being a principal is so much of an ego thing. Principals think they are demagogues. I've had 9 principals and this is the worst one I've ever had. On the staff, 78 of 90 have signed a petition to the school board asking to remove Abrams. There's a war going on here; huge turnover in staff. I've been in the district more than 24 years and I'm almost 55, so I have no fear of them.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
Marv Abrams, principal, yanked the whole paper b/c he said backyard wrestling was illegal in California. He and I had already gotten into it the previous year over an article on election fraud that mentioned one of the candidates was involved in stuffing the ballot box. The principal came barreling down to the paper two weeks later b/c the parent threatened to sue the school for libel. He had already decided the paper was guilty and he demanded a retraction. I wanted to consult other sources about whether it was really libelous. We had student witnesses claiming fraud. Summer came and when we got back, he was still demanding a retraction. I went to the California Teacher's Association and paralegal said it wasn't libel but the principal's actions could violate the 1st Amendment. The compromise was not to retract but we did apologize for any misunderstanding. It got really heated b/c he tried to intimidate the students to give in and print the retraction. I don't think my claims about violating the 1st Amendment phased him. To him, it is, "I'm the principal and I have absolute power."
The situation last year was over what he claims was illegal activity (wrestling), so we checked, and it was legal. He had the papers picked up and destroyed. And he tried to blame it on a typo.
What was your reaction?
I encouraged the students to stand up for themselves. The principal kept wanting me to help him convince them not to run the story, but I wouldn't. That made him mad.
How did students respond to you?
They wanted the story in the paper.
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
I never heard much from the community, but I'm sure the principal did
What kind of legal advice was sought/offered?
Contacted SPLC and then a law firm in town
What was the outcome?
Story never ran; newspaper adviser quit; new adviser with no journalism experience and no tenure so very dependent on principal's direction.
BACKGROUND
Name? Marv Abrams
Title? Principal
School? Nogales High School
Size? 2400 (9-12)
School/Community demographics?
Suburb 20 miles east of Los Angeles
68% Latino; 6% White; 8% Asian; 7% Black
Name of school newspaper? The Scroll
How is it funded? School budget + advertising
Educational background?
BA at San Diego State in political science
MA in behavioral psychology. Then I went to the military (Navy) for two years and focused on broadcast media (TV production, writing, directing)
# of years in current position? 4 years
# of years at school? 4 years
# of years in district? 19 years in Southern California
# of years in secondary education? 19
Journalism background (high school, college, professional)?
High school journalism was my connection to sanity_the world opened up for me and came to be my life_worked on college paper, The Aztec. That was my life in college and I loved it! Did broadcast media (TV production) while in the military for two years_taught journalism at University of Texas; University of California-San Digeo; Northern Arizona University; and taught poli sci at community college_moved to Southern California and started teaching journalism and photography ( So when I look for a journalism adviser I am looking for someone experienced.
We did a lot of controversial stuff. I got in trouble; I was a rabble rouser but I always made sure everything was right. (example: got three students to buy cigarettes, and a lot of them did. We had notified the cops we were going to do that, and even though made the community mad and was bad PR, too bad_they were hurting kids.)
I think journalism is a great part of the curriculum; it is a huge learning experience. For me, it was the thing that saved me.
Legal background?
Media law course
School law course (but very little in media_mostly personnel issues)
Does the school have an editorial policy?
No, I have too much to do already to review the paper. The teacher is in charge. The school newspaper shouldn't take any of my time. The key is teacher education. As I look back on it, I worked with the new journalism adviser about school libel and law.
STUDENT PRESS LAW KNOWLEDGE
How much freedom should the scholastic press have under the First Amendment?
Students should have the right to pursue any issue they choose and I should not be able to say this is not what you should/should not cover. But where it breaks down is when you are not doing good tenets of journalism. I was a journalism teacher.
Had the students done a story about backyard wrestling and interviewed the police and the doctors in the ER who treat the kids getting hurt and students and teachers comments about the practice, AND not pictured two students doing it, then it would have been a good story. It was not the issue itself I disagreed with. Do a story on backyard wrestling, but do it right, dammit! ;)
You can go into your own garage and produce a newspaper on your computer and your printer and ONLY you are responsible for the information. But you do a school paper and the school is responsible.
What if there is a story that is critical of the school _ is that acceptable?
There is no limit as to the topic_but you have to do it right. I may not like it (negative about school policy), but I wouldn't say you couldn't do it. And I don't necessarily agree with every "pull" either. No one likes to be criticized but in this position you have to sometimes. And never refuse to talk to the press.
I realize other administrations not as understanding. But it is a balancing act.
Are you familiar with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case? What is your understanding of the Court's interpretation of 1st Amendment application to students?
Yes - it all comes down to who is being held accountable, and with a school newspaper I am (as the principal) so Hazelwood makes sense.
Do you believe school administrators should have the right to review and/or restrict information from the student publication? Why/why not?
Yes_see above
Are you familiar with state student expression laws? What is your knowledge of the law in your state?
Yes. In California I can supervise the teacher to see that tenets of good journalism are followed, that articles are fair and avoid libelous comments.
What is your opinion of the concept behind the student free expression laws - that students have full 1st Amendment protection and prior review by an administrator is not legal?
I think it confuses students because they tend to not look at the part about their responsibilities and just skip to the part where it prohibits editorial judgment being imposed. And I think it makes it necessary to dance around the issue.
I'm sort of ambivalent about it; I'd rather have it cleaned up_maybe we need a court to really interpret what it means. If the law says hands off then they would be responsible but that is not the case. I like the idea of people being responsible for their own mistake and what comes about.
What would be your preference for improving students' rights under the 1st Amendment in regards to school newspapers - Supreme Court support, state law, trained advisers/principals on student expression?
Haven't the courts done enough? I think we have to get in the frame of mind that teachers teach, administrators supervise and students know how to learn, so why not focus on that. Credentialling for journalism teachers isn't a bad idea before they could take over the newspaper, but I'm content with looking for the people who have a good sense of working with kids, teaching responsibility along with rights, and having respect of the kids.
What would you say is the primary purpose of a student newspaper -- to promote the school in the local community or to be a vehicle for student expression on the topics of their choice? Why?
CASE IN QUESTION
What are the specifics of the situation?
We've had a problem with the paper being sloppily done. For example there was an article on competency and that was spelled wrong. It was not a quality product. I believe the newspaper adviser has a responsibility under the law to see that standards of journalism are upheld.
The adviser came to me with the paper. I groaned about the competency headline, then saw the wrestling article with a photo. In California there is a law against showing things that are illegal, so I believed the photo was potentially libelous (b/c showing two kids "wrestling" _ were not two kids from Nogales) And I thought it could get the district in trouble b/c of the pic showing two kids engaging in this activity.
I offered to pay for next-day publishing another issue, which we did and replaced the wrestling article. We were dealing with immaturity and dealing with minors.
The editors questioned my decision. I said I didn't know if it was libelous but if we went to court to find out, and I'm right, who gets in trouble? The students? The newspaper? No, the school.
I had a number of conversations with the staff. I tried to get them to understand that not doing the article should be their decision (choice). It was my decision to do, which meant throwing away about 10,000 papers.
There had been an incident the year before where a student was accused in the paper of fixing a student election. But the facts were wrong and the accusations were based on hearsay. I learned about it after it was published and the parents of the student complained to me and threatened a libel suit. I talked with the family and they were willing to accept a correction for not going to court. The adviser was willing to do it but the students were defiant. In that case, the school district's attorney told the staff that the defense has to prove absence of malice, and there was malice between the reporter and the student, so we would have lost.
It made me realize that all students are learning and you have to monitor them.
I do not review the newspaper, but after the second incident, I have asked the assistant principal to look over issue before it is published.
What was the response of the community (parents, school board, local press)?
There was an excellent interview with the San Gabriel News that was picked up by the LA Times, which was not as good and I was a little skeptical but it was extremely fair. (in February 2000)
Appendix E
Comparison of Case Studies:
14. Number of years adviser in current position
Newman Smith = 3
Avon = 12
Nogales = 11
15. Whether the adviser had tenure
Newman Smith = no
Avon = yes
Nogales = yes
16. Adviser's educational background (whether any journalism experience was included)
Newman Smith = high school, college, professional
Avon = high school, college
Nogales = high school, college, professional
17. Adviser's knowledge of student press law issues, including Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and student expression laws
Newman Smith = Hazelwood, not state laws
Avon = Hazelwood, on committee
Nogales = Hazelwood, state law
18. Number of years administrator at school
Newman Smith = 9
Avon = 11
Nogales = 4
19. Number of years principal in district
Newman Smith = 32
Avon = 17+
Nogales = 19
20. Principal's educational background (if included any journalism education or experience)
Newman Smith = high school; college
Avon = none
Nogales = high school; military
21. Principal's knowledge of student press issues, including Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and student expression laws
Newman Smith = Hazelwood, not state laws
Avon = somewhat familiar with Hazelwood and state laws
Nogales = Hazelwood and state law
22. Student editor's knowledge of student press issues, including Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and student expression laws
Newman Smith = vaguely on Hazelwood, none on state law
Avon = very familiar with both; on a study committee for state law
Nogales = familiar with both
23. Whether an altercation between the school administration and the student newspaper had occurred previously (current or different administration)
Newman Smith = yes
Avon = no
Nogales = yes
24. Principal's opinions about news credibility of local professional media
Newman Smith = good
Avon = good
Nogales = good
25. Whether an editorial policy existed at the school
Newman Smith = no
Avon = yes
Nogales = no
26. Whether the censored article was about a controversial topic and/or was critical of school policies or administration
Newman Smith = controversial topic
Avon = critical of school
Nogales = controversial topic
[1] Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
[2] Americans value free press, favor censorship in high schools. SPLC Report. January 1998.
[3] Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
[4] Davis v. Massachusettes, 167 U.S. 43 (1897).
[5] Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939).s
[6] Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educator's Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983).
[7] U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).
[8] Frisby v. Schultz, 484 U.S. 474 (1988).
[9] Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).
[10] In Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), the Supreme Court said once a university opens its buildings to student groups for public forums, it cannot deny the same access to religious groups.
[11] Student Press Law Center, Law of the Student Press, 15 (1984). See also, e.g., Zucker v. Panitz, 299 F.Supp. 102 (1969); Gambino v. Fairfax County School Board, 564 F.2d. 157 (4th Cir. 1977).
[12] Nicholas D. Kristof, Freedom of the High School Press, (University Press of America, Inc., 1983).
[13] Id. at 3.
[14] Gregory R. Anrig, Those High School Protesters: Can Boards Put Up With Much More? American School Board Journal, Oct. 1969 at 20.
[15] Peter Lander Jr. v. A.B. Seaver, 32 Vt. 113,123 (1859).
[16]
[17] 32 Vt. at 120-121.
[18] Murphy v. Board of Directors of Marengo District, 30 Iowa 429 (1870).
[19] Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). This decision resembled other decisions by the Court during the 1920s and 30s in which justices applied the 14th amendment right of due process to extend the constitutional First Amendment rights to the states. Led by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, this view began as the dissenting opinion in early cases [see Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)] and eventually was adopted by the entire Court [see Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1925); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937)]. It was this interpretation of the First Amendment that led to the preferred position of individual liberty over rights of the state to maintain order.
[20] West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
[21] Id. at 635.
[22] Interview with Christopher Eckhardt printed in Freedom Forum, Death by Cheeseburger: High School Journalism in the 1990s and Beyond (1994).
[23] Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
[24] Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506 (1969).
[25] Tinker, 393 U.S. at 511 (1969).
[26] Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513 (1969).
[27] Zucker v. Panitz, 299 F.Supp. 102 (1969).
[28] Zucker, 299 F. Supp at 105 (1969)
[29] One federal court said administrators could not discipline students for distributing an "underground" newspaper that criticized school policies and administrators, Scoville v. Board of Education, 425 F.2d. 10 (7th Cir. 1970). Another appellate court turned down a school board's prohibition of one student distributing antiwar leaflets at school, Riseman v. School Committee, 439 F.2d 148 (1st Cir. 1971). For more federal court opinions favoring students, see, e.g., Eisner v. Stamford Board of Education, 440 F.2d 803 (2nd Cir. 1971); Hatter v. Los Angeles City High School District, 452 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1971); Poxon v. Board of Education, 341 F. Supp. 256 (E.D. Cal. 1971).
[30] Koppell v. Levine, 347 F.Supp. 456 (E.D.N.Y 1972).
[31] Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
[32] Fraser's speech began with the comment, "I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants... ."
[33] Bethel, 478 U.S. at 678 (1986).
[34] Id. at 685-686 (1986). The Court permitted the school to discipline Fraser even though his comments did not meet the obscenity standard put in place in either Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968); or FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).
[35] Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
[36] Id. at 269 (1988).
[37] Id. at 270 (1988).
[38] Id. at 266-67 (1988).
[39] Id. at 267-270 (1988).
[40] Id. at 270-273 (1988).
[41] Id. at 273 (1988). The Court based this in loco parentis position in several cases, e.g., Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 208 (1982); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 326 (1975); and Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968).
[42] Id. at 279 (1988).
[43] Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513 (1969).
[44] Planned Parenthood v. Clark County School District, 941 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1991). The school had previously accepted ads from casinos, bars, churches, political candidates and the U.S. Army. The district claimed the Planned Parenthood ad was rejected to avoid the controversial issue of family planning.
[45] Nelson v. Moline School District, 725 F. Supp. 965 (C.D. Ill. 1989).
[46] Hedges v. Wauconda Community Unit School District, 807 F.Supp. 444 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
[47] Chandler v. McMinnville School District, 978 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1992).
[48] Id. at 526.
[49] Id. at 527 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506).
[50] Id. (quoting Fraser, 478 U.S. at 682).
[51] Id. (quoting Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 267, which references the court's remarks in Fraser, 478 U.S. at 685-686.)
[52] Id. at 529.
[53] Id. at 531.
[54] Paul McMasters, First Amendment: Surviving Year 2000 Challenges, The Forum, January 3, 2000.
[55] High School censorship up again in 1999, Requests for legal help from student journalists, advisers increases slightly, Student Press Law Center Report, Fall 2000 at 3.
[56] Penn T. Kimball and Samuel Lubell, High School Students' Attitudes Toward Journalism as a Career II, 37 Journalism Quarterly 413, 422 (1960).
[57] Don D. Horine, How Principals, Advisers and Editors View the High School Newspaper, 43 Journalism Quarterly 339 (1966).
[58] Max H. James, Propaganda or Education? Censorship and School Journalism, 13 Arizona English Bulletin, 37, 41 (October 1970).
[59] Id. at 38.
[60] Id. at 39.
[61] Jack Nelson, Captive Voices: The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into High School Journalism (1974).
[62] Nelson, 43-44.
[63] Id. at 29.
[64] Id. at 37.
[65] Nelson, 45.
[66] Laurence R. Campbell, Principals' Attitudes toward Student Journalism and Freedom of the Press, Quill and Scroll Studies (1976).
[67] Id. at 25.
[68] James J. Nyka, Censorship of Illinois High School Newspapers, (1976) (unpublished paper).
[69] E. Joseph Broussard and C. Robert Blackmon, Advisers, Editors and Principals Judge First Amendment Cases, 55 Journalism Quarterly 797, 799 (1978). The Louisiana State University professors did a follow-up study in 1979 but used a different sample and reworded the questions, making a direct comparison difficult. A comparison of the two was published the following year in E. Joseph Broussard and C. Robert Blackmon, Principals Think They Can Do What Congress Cannot - Abridge Freedom of the High School Press, Quill and Scroll 15-17 (October-November 1980).
[70] Id. at 799.
[71] Nicholas D. Kristof, Freedom of the High School Press (1983).
[72] Kristof used this definition in his report but not in the questionnaire, so respondents may have understood censorship to mean prior restraint.
[73] Id. at 33.
[74] Id. at 25.
[75] Id. at 36.
[76] Id. at 49.
[77] Id. at 51.
[78] Robert P. Knight, High School Journalism in the Post-Hazelwood Era, 43 Journalism Educator 42-47 (Summer 1988).
[79] Paula Renfro, Bruce Renfro and Roger Bennett, Expectations of Change in the High School Press after Hazelwood: A Survey of Texas High School Principals, Newspaper Advisers and Newspaper Editors, 4 Southwestern Mass Communication Journal 64 (1988). Of the 900 questionnaires mailed, 343 returned responses.
[80] Id. at 65.
[81] Thomas V. Dickson, How Advisers View the Status of High School Press Freedom Following the Hazelwood Decision (1989) (paper presented at the convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, D.C.).
[82] Thomas V. Dickson, Attitudes of High School Principals about Press Freedom after Hazelwood, 66 Journalism Quarterly 169-173 (Spring 1989).
[83] Id. at 172.
[84] For additional studies, see also, e.g., Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver, David L. Martinson and Peter Habermann, First Amendment Rights in South Florida: Views of Advisers and Administrators in Light of Hazelwood, The School Press Review (Fall 1989); Lorrie Ronae Crow, The Impact of Texas High School Students' and Principals' Perceptions of Student Press Freedom Following the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Supreme Court decision (1992) (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Oklahoma); Kathryn T. Stofer, Life after Hazelwood: Journalism programs in Nebraska schools 1992 (1993) (paper submitted to the Scholastic Journalism Division for presentation at the convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, MO.).
[85] Thomas V. Dickson, How Advisers View Changes in the High School Press in the Post Hazelwood Era, (1990) (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Secondary Education Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Tampa, Fla.). Results of Dickson's study were extensively reported in Jack Dvorak et al., Journalism Kids Do Better: What Research Tells Us About High School Journalism 288 (1994).
[86] Dickson, 7.
[87] Id. at 9.
[88] Id. at 9.
[89] Id. at 10.
[90] Dvorak at 293.
[91] See also, e.g. Larry Lain, A National Study of High School Newspaper Programs: Environmental and Adviser Characteristics, Funding and Pressures on Free Expression (1992) (paper presented at the convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Montreal, Canada), and Jack Dvorak, Secondary School Journalism in the United States, High School Journalism Institute Insight, April 1992.
[92] See also, e.g., Student Press Law Center calls up over 143 percent since 1988 Hazelwood case, Student Press Law Center Report (January 4, 1993); David Zweifel, Self Censorship is flourishing at high school newspapers, The Bulletin of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (March 1990).
[93] Thomas V. Dickson, Self-Censorship and Freedom of the Public High School Press, 49 Journalism Educator 56-63 (Autumn 1994).
[94] Id. at 59.
[95] Id. at 60-61.
[96] Id. at 62.
[97] Lyle D. Olson, Roger Van Ommeren and Marshel Rossow, The Nation's Scholastic Press Association Directors Describe the State of High School Journalism, Communication: Journalism Education Today 10, 12 (Spring 1993).
[98] Id. at 11.
[99] Id. at 13.
[100] Id. at 14.
[101] Id. at 16.
[102] Id. at 19.
[103] Id. at 20.
[104] Mark Paxton and Tom Dickson, State Free Expression Laws and Scholastic Press Censorship, 55 Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 50,59 (Summer 2000).
[105] Id. at 55.
[106] Id. at 56.
[107] Id. at 58.
[108] Tom Dickson, Self-Censorship and Freedom of the Public High School Press, 49 Journalism Educator 56, 63 (Autumn 1994).
[109] Ending Prior Review and Censorship, http://polls.vantagenet.com