Freedom (or lack thereof) of the Student Press

1. Freedom (or lack thereof) of the Student Press What a High School Journalist Needs to Know

2. A Brief History of Student Free Speech • Students often confuse First Amendment Rights with their rights as students.

3. It all started with…

4. Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist.393 U.S. 503 (1969) Argued: November 12, 1968 Decided: February 24, 1969

5. Tinker v. Des Moines Facts of the Case • John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of Des Moins school districts resolved that all students wearing armbands would be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

6. Tinker v. Des Moines Constitutional Question • Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections? Conclusion • The Court ruled that wearing armbands is protected speech as a form of political expression. This right is extended to students as a form of non-disruptive speech.

7. Tinker v. Des Moines Vote 7-2 Majority Opinion: Justice Fortas, joined by White, Stewart, Brennan, Douglas, Warren, Marshall • “The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.”

8. Tinker v. Des Moines Vote 7-2 Majority Opinion: Justice Fortas, joined by White, Stewart, Brennan, Douglas, Warren, Marshall • “First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

9. Tinker v. Des Moines • “. . . In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained . . .”

10. Tinker v. Des Moines Minority Opinion: Justice Black and Harlan: “While I have always believed that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments neither the State nor the Federal Government has any authority to regulate or censor the content of speech, I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases. This Court has already rejected such a notion. The Court clearly stated that the rights of free speech and assembly "do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time.”’

11. Yeah for Students’ Rights! But then….

12. Hazelwood School District et al.v. Kuhlmeier et al. 484 U.S. 260Argued October 13, 1987Decided January 13, 1988

13. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Facts of the Case: • Former high school students who were staff members of the school's newspaper, filed suit in Federal District Court against the school district and school officials, alleging that their First Amendment rights were violated.

14. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Facts of the Case: • The newspaper was written and edited by a journalism class, as part of the school's curriculum. A journalism adviser, who supervised the Spectrum’s staff, submitted each edition to the principal for review, prior to publication. In May 1983, a substitute was advising the newspaper because the regular journalism teacher left before the school year ended.

15. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Facts of the Case: • After reviewing the May 13 edition of the paper, principal Robert Reynolds decided that two articles should not be published. The articles covered teenage pregnancy at Hazelwood East and the effects of divorce on students. Reynolds decided to delete the two pages on which they appeared, thus deleting additional articles as well.

16. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Facts of the Case: • This is how the story on teen pregnancy in the May 13 issue of the Spectrum began: • Sixteen-year-old Sue had it all — good looks, good grades, a loving family and a cute boyfriend. She also had a seven pound baby boy. Each year, according to Claire Berman (Readers Digest, May 1983), close to 1.1 million teenagers — more than one out of every 10 teenage girls — become pregnant. In Missouri alone, 8,208 teens under the age of 18 became pregnant in 1980, according to Reproductive Health Services of St. Louis. That number was 7,363 in 1981.

17. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Facts of the Case: • The article followed with personal accounts of three Hazelwood East students who became pregnant. The names of all three were changed: • Terri: I am five months pregnant and very excited about having my baby. My husband is excited too. We both can’t wait until it’s born. . . . • Patti: I didn’t think it could happen to me, but I knew I had to start making plans for me and my little one. . . . • Julie: At first I was shocked. You always think ‘It won’t happen to me.’ I was also scared because I did not know how everyone was going to handle it. . . .

18. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Facts of the Case: • Principal Reynolds believed the pregnancy article was inappropriate for a school newspaper and its intended audience, and the girls’ anonymity was not adequately protected. He also believed that the divorce article, in which a student sharply criticized her father for not spending more time with his family, violated journalistic fairness because the newspaper did not give the girl’s father a chance to defend himself. As the journalism class was, in part, designed to teach these notions of fairness, Reynolds asserted that he was acting in the best interests of the school by censoring the material.

19. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Facts of the Case: • The District Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. The Court of Appeals reversed.

20. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Conclusion: • On Jan. 13, 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis, which had upheld the rights of the students. The Court ruled that Principal Reynolds had the right to censor articles in the student newspaper that were deemed contrary to the school’s educational mission.

21. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Conclusion: • The majority opinion noted that the school newspaper was not a public forum and thus the 1st Amendment challenge was not valid. Moreover, the court affirmed prior rulings that student right are not “coextensive” with the rights of adults outside of the school setting. The school may still meet its educational mission while censoring the student newspaper and so the principals editorial control is upheld.

22. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Conclusion: • Where Tinker gave students the power of free expression, Hazelwood gave school administrators the power to censor student newspapers.

23. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Conclusion: • The Supreme Court began its analysis by citing Tinker’s basic premise that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.” But the Court modified this position by citing Bethel vs. Fraser, “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission.”

24. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Conclusion: • The Court said schools could censor any forms of expression deemed “ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences,” or any expression that advocates “conduct otherwise inconsistent with the shared values of the civilized social order.”

25. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Majority Opinion: Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia • “Respondents' First Amendment rights were not violated.” • “First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.”

26. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Vote: 6-3 Majority Opinion: Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia • “The school newspaper here cannot be characterized as a forum for public expression.”

27. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Vote: 6-3 Majority Opinion: Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia • “The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that happens to occur on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, distinguished.

28. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Vote: 6-3 Majority Opinion: Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia • Justice Byron White wrote in the Court’s majority opinion, “A school must be able to set high standards for the student speech that is disseminated under its auspices — standards that may be higher than those demanded by some newspaper publishers or theatrical producers in the ‘real’ world — and may refuse to disseminate student speech that does not meet those standards.

29. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Vote: 6-3 Majority Opinion: Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia • Justice Byron White continued, “In addition, a school must be able to take into account the emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining whether to disseminate student speech on potentially sensitive topics, which might range from the existence of Santa Claus in an elementary school setting to the particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school setting.”

30. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Vote: 6-3 Majority Opinion: Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia • 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.”

31. Sources • Much of this is excerpted from “From Tinker to Hazelwood: Landmark Supreme Court decisions and how schools deal with them” originally appeared as chapter 7 in “Death By Cheeseburger: High School Journalism in the 1990s and Beyond.” • "Education for Freedom Lesson 8 - Case Summary: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Education for Freedom Lesson 8 - Case Summary: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Aug. 2012. <http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/l08-casesummaryhazelwood.htm>.

32. "Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. 393 U.S. 503 (1969)." Isite.lps.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Aug. 2012. <https://docs.google.com/a/cfsd16.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XTezP4lKerwJ:isite.lps.org/rsalem/web/documents/Student_Rights_and_the_Supreme_Court_revision_6-24.ppt+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShBieOhw3g3IN9mxFK7gd8-N-VKLn4eCZSTUBEaANI6noe1BxFW-8w3tkssfcGUbTHxTAN2pVsR0uUq4O3lZEFGseISmsrZsScD_jDWhAYc3VkWvgtrbywkpAB74Df4Zcu248dl&sig=AHIEtbRMf63PFGSp45sNlXH0qvbYGTFhiQ>.

33. Sources • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to American Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. • Hartman, Gary, R., Roy M. Mersky, and Cindy L. Tate. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. New York, Facts on File, Inc., 2004. • The Oyez Project, www.Oyez.org, 2007.