Background
Summary and Questions
•
•
•
In
May 1983, students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood
East High School in St. Louis, Missouri, generated the final
edition of their school paper, the Spectrum. As was customary,
they submitted the paper to their advisor, Howard Emerson,
who was new to the job. He followed the procedures of the
recently departed previous advisor, giving the principal,
Robert Reynolds, the opportunity to review the paper prior
to publication.
When Reynolds reviewed the paper, he found two articles that
concerned him. The first article addressed the issue of teen
pregnancy, including comments from pregnant students at the
school. Although names were not given, Reynolds thought there
were enough details in the article to make it easy for other
students to determine the identities of the pregnant teens.
He was concerned about the privacy of those students. The
second article was about divorce and, like the first article,
this one included personal articles. In this article, Reynolds
was not concerned so much about the students, but, rather,
about what they said about their families. For instance, one
student whose parents were divorced made negative comments
about her father, claiming that her father was always out
with the guys, that he didn't spend enough time with his family,
and that the father and mother were always arguing. Reynolds
was troubled by the fact that the father had not been given
a chance to defend himself by responding to his daughter's
comments. He also noticed that the article mentioned sex and
birth control. He did not think that students in ninth grade
should be reading about sex and birth control.
Reynolds wanted the students to make changes in their articles,
but he was afraid that if they took the time to do so, they
would miss the deadline for publishing the Spectrum. He did
not want that to happen, especially because it was the last
issue of the year and there would not be another chance to
publish the paper. He felt like he had to make a quick decision,
so he told Emerson to delete the two pages with the questionable
articles and publish the remainder of the paper. He informed
his superiors in the school system of this decision; they
supported him wholeheartedly.
The students had invested a great deal of time and energy
in producing the paper and felt that they had followed proper
journalism procedures. If they had been approached about the
problems, they may have been able to resolve them. They were
upset to find out instead that two pages, which included a
number of non-offensive articles, had been deleted. They felt
that this censorship was a direct violation of their First
Amendment rights, so they took their case to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. This court did
not agree with the students; the judges said that school officials
might impose limits on students' speech in activities that
are "an integral part of the school's educational function"
as long as their decision "has a substantial and reasonable
basis". In other words, the court felt that if the school
has a good reason to do so, it could place limits on curricular
activities, such as the publication of the school newspaper.
Unhappy with the outcome, the students appealed their case
to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This court
reversed the decision of the lower court, saying that the
students' First Amendment rights were violated. In the opinion,
the court conceded that the newspaper was indeed a part of
the school curriculum but noted that it was also a "public
forum". As a public forum, the newspaper was "intended to
be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint". Because
the paper was a forum for student discussion, the principal
or other officials could censor it only when "necessary to
avoid material and substantial interference with school work
or discipline . . . or the rights of others".
The school appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the
case. In determining whether or not students' rights were
violated, it would consider whether or not the student newspaper
was a public forum and whether the First Amendment "requires
a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech".
Questions to Consider:
- Why
did the newspaper advisor give the paper to Principal
Reynolds for review? Was this standard procedure?
- What
concerns did Principal Reynolds have regarding the two
articles? Were these legitimate concerns? Do you think
the principal had any options other than deleting entire
pages from the student paper?
- What
rights did the students believe had been violated? What
is the relevant wording of the First Amendment?
- Were
there steps the students could have taken other than filing
a lawsuit?
- Should
a principal be able to censor student newspapers? If so,
under what conditions?
- Should
a principal or other school authority be able to silence
other forms of student speech? If so, under what conditions?
How does speech by an individual student differ from speech
by the school newspaper?
|
