For almost 20 years, Tinker v. Des Moines was the law of the land for journalism students, but that changed in 1988 when the Supreme Court reversed its field and made it easier for administrations to restrain student expression. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld in a 5-3 vote the right of a principal to censor stories in certain cases. In this case, the principal pulled stories on birth control and living in families with divorced parents.
In essence, the Hazelwood ruling made administrative censorship in public schools allowable when one of two conditions are proven by the principal: (1) censoring is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns; and/or (2) a public forum has not be established by tradition or by policy in the state publication.
To counter the decision, advocates of the scholastic press have counseled student editors and their advisers to establish their publications as public forums and to inform their readers about the community they exist in. Because the justices took aim at a perceived lack of professionalism in the Hazelwood, Mo., East publication, it is also highly recommended that student journalists emphasize the importance of factual precision and formal written English.
Advocates of scholastic journalism have encouraged state legislatures to pass protective laws. So far, six states have done that, including California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Kansas, Colorado and Arkansas. The assumption is that these state laws add a level of protection for student free expression that does not exist in the other 44 states.
In the nearly two decades since the 1988 decision, Hazelwood has emboldened principals to take a more activist role and intervene when they believe student publications cast a school in an unfavorable light. Accordingly, a chilling effect on student free expression exists in many schools. However, principals must justify censorship under the two-part test described above.
Furthermore, students in the six states with a protective law have a second level of protection, and non-curricular student publications retain the stronger First Amendment protections that the commercial media enjoy.
< Page 2/2