Policy model 3
Policy 3: Freedom of expression and press freedom are fundamental values in a democratic society.
The mission of any institution committed to preparing productive citizens must include teaching students these values, both by lesson and by example.
For these purposes, as well as to teach students responsibility by empowering them to make and defend their own decisions, school-sponsored student news media, print or online, at [NAME OF SCHOOL] are established as designated public forums for student expression in which students make all final decisions of content.
Such news media will not be reviewed by school officials outside the adviser in his/her coaching role or restrained by school officials prior to, during, or after publication or distribution.
Therefore, material published in school-sponsored news media may not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the [NAME OF SCHOOL] District, and neither school officials nor the school are legally responsible for their content.
Students are protected by and bound to the principles of the First Amendment and other protections and limitations afforded by the U.S. Constitution and the various court decisions reaffirming those principles.
Comment: This is the same as model two but also includes a statement that student media do not intend to reflect the opinions of school authorities. Like model two, this model addresses the educational value of student media and attaches these issues to legal language. The three essential points made in earlier models appear here as well.
Designated forum: This language (designated forum in policy or practice) should be included in policies at board or publication level because all public forums are designated either by action or inaction (unless the board clearly says otherwise). Being silent as students operate as a forum is really permitting a designated forum.
Return to sitemap.
Read MorePolicy model 2
Policy 2: [NAME OF SCHOOL] student media are designated public forums in which students make all decisions of content without prior review from school officials.
Freedom of expression and press freedom are fundamental values in a democratic society. The mission of any institution committed to preparing productive citizens must include teaching these values and providing a venue for students to practice these values, both by lesson and by example.
As preservers of democracy, our schools shall protect, encourage and enhance free speech and the exchange of ideas as a means of protecting our American way of life.
[NAME OF MEDIA] and its staff are protected by and bound to the principles of the First Amendment and other protections and limitations afforded by the Constitution and the various laws and court decisions implementing those principles.
Comment: Again, this board-level model policy removes process details from being points of board action or meddling. It also introduces educational and philosophical language to give administrators insight into and understanding of why student media do what they do. It can aid in community understanding and support of the forum process.
This policy is slightly longer because it adds philosophical wording to support the decision-making without review. This policy could be effective at the board level because it allows others points to be explained in the ethics guidelines and staff manuals.
Designated forum: This language (designated forum in policy or practice) should be included in policies at board or publication level because all public forums are designated either by action or inaction (unless the board clearly says otherwise). Being silent as students operate as a forum is really permitting a designated forum
Return to sitemap.
Read MorePolicy model 1
Policy 1: [NAME OF SCHOOL] student media are designated public forums in which students make all decisions of content without prior review by school officials.
Comment: This contains only the basic statement of journalistic responsibility. It is usable at the board level to outline the basic principles of external oversight, leaving the process to other internal packages, like ethics guidelines and staff manuals. This removes from consideration the possibility of board attempts to change process-oriented direction.
A short statement like this clearly establishes the principles and responsibilities that guide all other statements. With no prior review added to it, it has the three crucial points in a policy: (1) designated public forum status in which (2) students make all final decisions regarding content and (3) do so without prior review. Decisions on matters such as letters, bylines, staff disciplinary actions, coverage of death and more are best detailed in ethical guidelines and staff manuals.
Designated forum: This language (designated forum in policy or practice) should be included in policies at board or publication level because all public forums are designated either by action or inaction (unless the board clearly says otherwise). Being silent as students operate as a forum is really permitting a designated forum.
Return to sitemap.
Read MoreQuestions about public forum status
When your publication is a public forum
and when it is not
by Mark Goodman, Professor and Knight Chair in Scholastic Journalism, Kent State University
School officials’ ability to legally censor school-sponsored student expression at public junior high and high schools is determined by whether they can meet the burden the First Amendment places on them to justify their actions. Often the most important question in that analysis is which of two First Amendment standards they have to meet.
- The Tinker standard (as defined by the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)), which says schools can censor only if their actions are necessary to avoid a material and substantial disruption of school activities or an invasion of the rights of others. This language may sound vague, but as the courts have interpreted it, the Tinker standard is a very difficult one for school officials to meet and typically requires them to show evidence of physical disruption before their censorship will be allowed.
- The Hazelwood standard (as defined by the case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)), which says schools can censor if their actions are reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns. Although this standard requires school officials to justify every act of censorship as educationally sound, it is a standard that gives school officials more extensive authority to silence or punish student expression.
How do you determine which standard applies? Forum status.
The Supreme Court made clear that the standard it created in the Hazelwood case did not automatically apply to every school-sponsored student publication. Rather, to determine which standard applied to a particular act of censorship of a student publication, a court must first ask this question:
Has the publication, by either school policy or practice, been opened as a designated public forum for student expression?
Even curricular, school-sponsored student publications may still be entitled to strong First Amendment protection and exempt from Hazelwood’s limitations if they have been designated a “public forum” for student expression.
[pullquote]The Supreme Court made clear that the standard it created in the Hazelwood case did not automatically apply to every school-sponsored student publication. Rather, to determine which standard applied to a particular act of censorship of a student publication, a court must first ask this question:
Has the publication, by either school policy or practice, been opened as a designated public forum for student expression?[/pullquote]
How do you determine public forum status?
A public forum is created when school officials have “by policy or by practice” opened a publication for use by students to engage in their own free expression.
In the Hazelwood case, the Court said that it believed that both the policy and practice at Hazelwood East High School reflected school officials’ intent to exercise complete control over the student newspaper’s content. That finding prompted the Court to say a designated public forum did not exist. Nevertheless, student publications at other schools with different policies and different practices relating to editorial control can be public forums. Where student editors have been given final authority over content decisions in their publications or where a school policy explicitly describes a student publication as a designated public forum, the Tinker standard will still apply.
At schools where student editors are given the authority to make final decisions about what will be included in their publication or where a school policy reflects an intent to give students that authority, public forum status will still be found and schools will have to meet the Tinker standard before they can legally censor.
Is your publication a designated public forum?
In the post-Hazelwood world, it is more important than ever that student journalists and their advisers know what policies their school has adopted relating to student publications or student expression. The language of those polices (whether they give editorial control to students or keep it in the hands of school officials) and the amount of freedom that students have traditionally operated under at the school can determine whether Hazelwood or Tinker sets the standard for what school officials will be allowed to censor.
[pullquote]If you’re developing a new policy, the Scholastic Press Rights Committee recommends using language that reads something like this:
[Name of publication] is a designated public forum for student expression. Student editors make all content decisions without prior review from school officials. [/pullquote]
Two things are important about the phrasing of this policy statement. First is the use of the words “designated public forum” as opposed to “limited public forum” or other similar language. Although many once believed the two phrases were interchangeable, some recent court decisions have suggested that using the word “limited” opens the door to school censorship as permitted under Hazelwood.
Second, using the phrase “student editors make all content decisions” is in many ways a clearer restatement of the meaning of “designated public forum.” It conveys the intent behind the public forum phrase that anyone unfamiliar with the relevant Supreme Court rulings should understand.
Return to sitemap.
Read MoreMedia-level editorial policies
Ethics guidelines
Media-level e
ditorial policies aren’t as much legal protection as the board-level policies, but they could show how students operate “in practice” and thus might be viewed as some protection. Thus they are a must for student media. JEA’s Model Editorial Policy is a good example because it adds discussion points such as letters to the editor, handling coverage of death and advertising.
Any of the board-level policy models can be adapted for use at the media level. All policies, including the JEA model, stress student media as designated public forums in which students make all content decisions without prior review by school officials.
The JEA model includes detailed language and provides direction for process and principles. It expands on the Student Press Law Center’s Model Guidelines for High School Media, with the kind of situations student media face, which makes it preferable at the level of the individual medium.
Ethical guidelines and staff manual procedures should be separate sections from either board-level or student media-level policies. This way student editors can update their staff manuals to meet changing needs and situations.
Staff manual process
A school without policies can cause confusion and misunderstanding for readers and participants. Media-level editorial policies should be direct, clear and understandable to people of all ages. These policies reinforce ethical guidelines, and a staff manual rooted in ethical approaches outlines their implementation on a daily basis.
Media-level editorial policies should be reviewed and endorsed yearly to keep them current as the active framework for student media. Any student media policy established without the input of its student practitioners is both a missed opportunity and a recipe for mistakes. By evaluating the inclusion of these policies, students will better understand their mission and expectations.
When finished, media-level policies should be shared with school and outside communities so all parties understand the principles and processes the journalism program follows.
Suggestions
Even if staffs incorporate the JEA model editorial policy as a framework, students should work to establish clear guidelines for their decision-making.
In creating the ideal forum statement, consistent for all student media at either media or board level, staffs should include: “[NAME OF STUDENT MEDIA] are designated public forums for student expression in which students make all final content decisions without prior review from school officials.”
Such a media-level policy, board-approved or in practice, would be designed to protect all parties in case of legal issues
Return to sitemap.
Read MoreOwnership of student content
Ethical guidelines
Absent a written agreement indicating otherwise, student journalists own the copyright to the works they create. Each media outlet should ensure it has clear policies in place for staff members and the publication that spell out ownership and the right of the publication to use student work.
Staff manual process
Several options exist for written policy statements. The student media outlet can allow students to retain ownership of the works they create while giving the publication a license to use them. The downside of this option is that the publication may not be able to prevent others from using the work without permission because it is not technically an owner of the work. The second option assigns the copyright ownership of the students’ works to the publication, which can defend those ownership rights.
Suggestions
• Student editors should discuss which option makes them feel the most comfortable.
• Student media staffs should use suggested guidelines from the Journalism Education Association Scholastic Press Rights Committee and the Student Press Law Center to craft an ownership statement suitable for their program.
Resources
Who Owns Student Content?, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Back to School: Who Owns What?, Student Press Law Center
Contribution to Collective Work, U.S. Copyright Office
To return to the main Policy and Ethics page, go here.
Read More