For those interested in free speech in schools~
I wrote this essay because of an incident that happened at my high school last year. It's not quite finished yet but I'mma post it. It involves the censorship of high school newspapers. I found it really interesting... but my essay is really long so I doubt people will read it all. xD
In the 2007 January issue of The Crier, a high school student newspaper in the north suburbs of Minnesota, a blue box appeared on the front page replacing a photograph banned by the school administration. Having been editor-in-chief of this publication the previous year, I discovered the banned photo came from the year’s fall play. It was a scene showing an tattered and shredded American flag, but it wasn’t actually a flag. It was a piece of fabric made to appear like a flag to be used in the play, which was a hypothetical drama about the Cold War. The play itself was shown to the community and nearly the entire student body, and this picture was also posted in the hallway near the Performing Arts Center. The Crier planned to write a story about the play itself, and decided to let the school principal know they were going to print the photo in the coming issue. When the principal learned this, he forbid the newspaper staff to print the image, froze their funding, and threatened legal action if they printed the image. In an article written in the Pioneer Press, the district’s superintendent said the principal was justified in his actions because the photo could be offensive to veterans or those in military service. He claimed, “It’s kind of a community standards thing.” Also in the article, editorial staff of The Crier stated, "While we have a legal right to print the picture -- we decided that we would not place the picture in the newspaper out of fear that the future of the newspaper could be in jeopardy if we choose to take this path. There has been a complete disregard for the law and students rights” (Orrick).
Because high school newspapers are not separate from school settings, it is questioned whether or not they can be reviewed by school officials. Some school administrators say because the papers connect to the school, it is their duty to make sure the content agrees with the school’s mission statement, and they are justified in reviewing it prior to release. This is completely unethical. Public high school officials in America should not be allowed prior review of public high school newspapers. Prior review is unethical by journalistic standards, and can allow school officials to control the content of the publication to their own agenda. The practice of prior review often leads to prior restraint, or censoring, which violates students’ First Amendment rights.
High school newspapers often carry the school’s name, or clearly show ties to the school. This isn’t surprising, as the main focal point of the paper is issues within the school. But this fact often leads school officials to believe they must oversee the content being produced. According to an article in the St. Petersburg Times, the principal of Hillsborough High School in Florida pulled an article from The Red & Black, the school newspaper, because it drew attention to the school’s racial achievement gap between white and minority students. The principal justified himself, saying, "If it's something that has a potential to hurt students' self-esteem, then I have an obligation not to let that happen.” He added, “I don't think it's the job of the school newspaper to embarrass the students.” However, the story based itself on government data from the No Child Left Behind Act, and, according the St. Petersburg Times, showed what current actions were being taken to lessen the gap. The writer also gave her own suggestions to help the situation. The assistant principal said, “If it had appeared in the Tampa Tribune or St. Petersburg Times, we wouldn't have thought anything of it.” She continued, saying, “But a student newspaper has to be a little more sensitive to the feelings of the students” (Stein).
Because the story appeared in a student newspaper, rather than an “adult” publication, the school officials felt justified to review the paper prior to publication, and further to pull the story. School officials are entities of the state, which are not allowed prior review in an “adult” newspaper. Prior review is unethical by journalistic standards and can allow school officials to control the content of the publication to their own agenda.
Making the distinction between student and non-student newspapers only harms learning about the freedom of the press. It says to the students that the freedoms of the First Amendment are applicable in certain situations, rather than for everyone. The Journalism Education Association makes a statement strongly opposing prior review. They claim prior review by anyone but newspaper advisors is “illogical, journalistically inappropriate and educationally unsound” (Journalism Education Association). It is the advisor and students’ responsibility to make sure content in their publication is appropriate and properly conveys the ideas of the student body.
The situations of The Crier and The Red & Black content banned was not in agreement with what school officials deemed appropriate. However, neither article would cause disruption in the school. They simply made the image of the school worsen. It’s the duty of journalism to make known what is, not what is wished to be. This reporting should question state (or school) public figures and push for improvement. Students will not read papers with “perfect school” content fed to them. It’s not what they see happening, and only works as propaganda. In China, The People’s Daily is a case example of a newspaper controlled by the government. Most material printed is supportive of the Chinese governement. The only critical articles are of other governments not agreeing to their own. This isn’t a newspaper, rather a government newsletter. In the case of The Crier, the Pioneer Press article discussed the matter with the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, Chuck Samuelson. He asserted school journalism teaches the “rights and responsibilities of free speech” and that the principal should not have threatened legal action. “It was a teaching moment, and he blew it” (Orrick).
In 1988 a definitive court case, HazelWood vs. Kuhlmeier, limited the rights of student newspapers. LandMarkCases.org summarizes the case as a conflict in HazelWood East High School. The student paper, The Spectrum, planned to publish articles on teen pregnancy and divorce within the school. The principal pulled the entire pages containing these articles, justifying they were offensive and potentially harmful to the students. The courts agreed five to three, explaining the rights of students are not the same with those of adults in other settings due to the special circumstance of the school setting. Because The Spectrum was not deemed a public forum, an established entity separate from the school’s ideas, and thus completely attached to the school, the officials had rights to review and censor any material not in agreement with school policy (LandMarkCases.org).
Hazelwood allows for prior review of non-public forums. As seen in The Red & Black, The Crier, and The Spectrum, the practice of prior review often leads to prior restraint, or censoring, which violates students’ First Amendment rights. Making the distinction between public and non-public forums for student newspapers only further enforces the idea that not all are given equal First Amendment rights.
Supreme Court Justice White stated in Hazelwood that the school has right to review and censor non-public forums “even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school” (LandMarkCases.org). If the government cannot censor speech outside the school, and public officials are not allowed prior review of adult newspapers, it is violating students’ rights and makes a basic freedom situational. A supreme court case Tinker vs. Des Moines states school officials cannot limit or censor student expression as long as it does not disrupt or damage the school. It states students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Certain stories are not permissible to print in any circumstance. Stories defaming others or using vulgar language are not printed. If a student writes an article using made up quotations or false information, it is also sent to be rewritten or not published. This is judged by the editors of the papers, as adults and also as students. A story written criticizing a principal on enforcement of dress code has no grounds to be censored unless it uses vulgar or untrue information. Journalism advisors and student editors are capable of filtering this information before it is published. The advisor teaches the students proper ethics, and makes sure journalistic standards are met. It is not the responsibility of school officials because often times they are the subject of stories and this can lead to unjust censorship if stories written do not reflect them in good light. Student editors and newspaper advisors are responsible enough to decide what is published.
The freedom of speech and press is a right given to all Americans by the constitution. Prior review is not tolerated in public newspapers, nor is censoring. When it comes to high school newspapers these rights should hold true. Having prior review is unethical journalistically, allows school officials to promote ideas in agreement to their own agenda. This practice often leads to censorship, which violates First Amendment rights. Students running publications must learn the responsibilities of this freedom, and should be responsible for the ideas and views expressed in student newspapers.
Works Cited (XD I had to do research. Darn academic papers! I used more sources but these are the ones I cited directly...)
“Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier.” Landmarkcases.org. 21 Apr. 2007
http://www.landmarkcases.org/hazelwood/home.html
JEA Board of Directors. “Statement on Prior Review.” JEA.org. 31 Mar. 1990. 21 Apr. 2007
http://www.jea.org/about/statements.html#review
Orrick, Dave. “St. Francis superintendent defends photo ban.” Saint Paul Pioneer Press.
18 Jan. 2007. 21 Apr 2007. http://www.highschooljournalism.org/Content.cfm?id=65&mode=0&newsid=490>
Stein, Letita. “School newspaper censored: The offending content: already-posted test data.”
St. Petersburg Times. 24 Oct. 2006. 21 Apr. 2007.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/24/Hillsborough/School_newspaper_cens.shtml
“Tinker et al. v. Des Moines.” Freedom of Speech in the United Sates, 5th ed.
Home Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2005. www.bc.edu/free_speech
Discussion: GO.
It was neat... the incident at my school was mentioned at the Student Press Law Center, the ACLU, Associated Press, USA Today, and a lot of our local newspapers.... We are an example now~! XD I wish I was still editor-in-chief then... I would have had a lot of fun dealing with that noob principal. :P My advisor recommended I stay out of it though. ;(
In the 2007 January issue of The Crier, a high school student newspaper in the north suburbs of Minnesota, a blue box appeared on the front page replacing a photograph banned by the school administration. Having been editor-in-chief of this publication the previous year, I discovered the banned photo came from the year’s fall play. It was a scene showing an tattered and shredded American flag, but it wasn’t actually a flag. It was a piece of fabric made to appear like a flag to be used in the play, which was a hypothetical drama about the Cold War. The play itself was shown to the community and nearly the entire student body, and this picture was also posted in the hallway near the Performing Arts Center. The Crier planned to write a story about the play itself, and decided to let the school principal know they were going to print the photo in the coming issue. When the principal learned this, he forbid the newspaper staff to print the image, froze their funding, and threatened legal action if they printed the image. In an article written in the Pioneer Press, the district’s superintendent said the principal was justified in his actions because the photo could be offensive to veterans or those in military service. He claimed, “It’s kind of a community standards thing.” Also in the article, editorial staff of The Crier stated, "While we have a legal right to print the picture -- we decided that we would not place the picture in the newspaper out of fear that the future of the newspaper could be in jeopardy if we choose to take this path. There has been a complete disregard for the law and students rights” (Orrick).
Because high school newspapers are not separate from school settings, it is questioned whether or not they can be reviewed by school officials. Some school administrators say because the papers connect to the school, it is their duty to make sure the content agrees with the school’s mission statement, and they are justified in reviewing it prior to release. This is completely unethical. Public high school officials in America should not be allowed prior review of public high school newspapers. Prior review is unethical by journalistic standards, and can allow school officials to control the content of the publication to their own agenda. The practice of prior review often leads to prior restraint, or censoring, which violates students’ First Amendment rights.
High school newspapers often carry the school’s name, or clearly show ties to the school. This isn’t surprising, as the main focal point of the paper is issues within the school. But this fact often leads school officials to believe they must oversee the content being produced. According to an article in the St. Petersburg Times, the principal of Hillsborough High School in Florida pulled an article from The Red & Black, the school newspaper, because it drew attention to the school’s racial achievement gap between white and minority students. The principal justified himself, saying, "If it's something that has a potential to hurt students' self-esteem, then I have an obligation not to let that happen.” He added, “I don't think it's the job of the school newspaper to embarrass the students.” However, the story based itself on government data from the No Child Left Behind Act, and, according the St. Petersburg Times, showed what current actions were being taken to lessen the gap. The writer also gave her own suggestions to help the situation. The assistant principal said, “If it had appeared in the Tampa Tribune or St. Petersburg Times, we wouldn't have thought anything of it.” She continued, saying, “But a student newspaper has to be a little more sensitive to the feelings of the students” (Stein).
Because the story appeared in a student newspaper, rather than an “adult” publication, the school officials felt justified to review the paper prior to publication, and further to pull the story. School officials are entities of the state, which are not allowed prior review in an “adult” newspaper. Prior review is unethical by journalistic standards and can allow school officials to control the content of the publication to their own agenda.
Making the distinction between student and non-student newspapers only harms learning about the freedom of the press. It says to the students that the freedoms of the First Amendment are applicable in certain situations, rather than for everyone. The Journalism Education Association makes a statement strongly opposing prior review. They claim prior review by anyone but newspaper advisors is “illogical, journalistically inappropriate and educationally unsound” (Journalism Education Association). It is the advisor and students’ responsibility to make sure content in their publication is appropriate and properly conveys the ideas of the student body.
The situations of The Crier and The Red & Black content banned was not in agreement with what school officials deemed appropriate. However, neither article would cause disruption in the school. They simply made the image of the school worsen. It’s the duty of journalism to make known what is, not what is wished to be. This reporting should question state (or school) public figures and push for improvement. Students will not read papers with “perfect school” content fed to them. It’s not what they see happening, and only works as propaganda. In China, The People’s Daily is a case example of a newspaper controlled by the government. Most material printed is supportive of the Chinese governement. The only critical articles are of other governments not agreeing to their own. This isn’t a newspaper, rather a government newsletter. In the case of The Crier, the Pioneer Press article discussed the matter with the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, Chuck Samuelson. He asserted school journalism teaches the “rights and responsibilities of free speech” and that the principal should not have threatened legal action. “It was a teaching moment, and he blew it” (Orrick).
In 1988 a definitive court case, HazelWood vs. Kuhlmeier, limited the rights of student newspapers. LandMarkCases.org summarizes the case as a conflict in HazelWood East High School. The student paper, The Spectrum, planned to publish articles on teen pregnancy and divorce within the school. The principal pulled the entire pages containing these articles, justifying they were offensive and potentially harmful to the students. The courts agreed five to three, explaining the rights of students are not the same with those of adults in other settings due to the special circumstance of the school setting. Because The Spectrum was not deemed a public forum, an established entity separate from the school’s ideas, and thus completely attached to the school, the officials had rights to review and censor any material not in agreement with school policy (LandMarkCases.org).
Hazelwood allows for prior review of non-public forums. As seen in The Red & Black, The Crier, and The Spectrum, the practice of prior review often leads to prior restraint, or censoring, which violates students’ First Amendment rights. Making the distinction between public and non-public forums for student newspapers only further enforces the idea that not all are given equal First Amendment rights.
Supreme Court Justice White stated in Hazelwood that the school has right to review and censor non-public forums “even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school” (LandMarkCases.org). If the government cannot censor speech outside the school, and public officials are not allowed prior review of adult newspapers, it is violating students’ rights and makes a basic freedom situational. A supreme court case Tinker vs. Des Moines states school officials cannot limit or censor student expression as long as it does not disrupt or damage the school. It states students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Certain stories are not permissible to print in any circumstance. Stories defaming others or using vulgar language are not printed. If a student writes an article using made up quotations or false information, it is also sent to be rewritten or not published. This is judged by the editors of the papers, as adults and also as students. A story written criticizing a principal on enforcement of dress code has no grounds to be censored unless it uses vulgar or untrue information. Journalism advisors and student editors are capable of filtering this information before it is published. The advisor teaches the students proper ethics, and makes sure journalistic standards are met. It is not the responsibility of school officials because often times they are the subject of stories and this can lead to unjust censorship if stories written do not reflect them in good light. Student editors and newspaper advisors are responsible enough to decide what is published.
The freedom of speech and press is a right given to all Americans by the constitution. Prior review is not tolerated in public newspapers, nor is censoring. When it comes to high school newspapers these rights should hold true. Having prior review is unethical journalistically, allows school officials to promote ideas in agreement to their own agenda. This practice often leads to censorship, which violates First Amendment rights. Students running publications must learn the responsibilities of this freedom, and should be responsible for the ideas and views expressed in student newspapers.
Works Cited (XD I had to do research. Darn academic papers! I used more sources but these are the ones I cited directly...)
“Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier.” Landmarkcases.org. 21 Apr. 2007
http://www.landmarkcases.org/hazelwood/home.html
JEA Board of Directors. “Statement on Prior Review.” JEA.org. 31 Mar. 1990. 21 Apr. 2007
http://www.jea.org/about/statements.html#review
Orrick, Dave. “St. Francis superintendent defends photo ban.” Saint Paul Pioneer Press.
18 Jan. 2007. 21 Apr 2007. http://www.highschooljournalism.org/Content.cfm?id=65&mode=0&newsid=490>
Stein, Letita. “School newspaper censored: The offending content: already-posted test data.”
St. Petersburg Times. 24 Oct. 2006. 21 Apr. 2007.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/24/Hillsborough/School_newspaper_cens.shtml
“Tinker et al. v. Des Moines.” Freedom of Speech in the United Sates, 5th ed.
Home Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2005. www.bc.edu/free_speech
Discussion: GO.
It was neat... the incident at my school was mentioned at the Student Press Law Center, the ACLU, Associated Press, USA Today, and a lot of our local newspapers.... We are an example now~! XD I wish I was still editor-in-chief then... I would have had a lot of fun dealing with that noob principal. :P My advisor recommended I stay out of it though. ;(