Hazelwood leaves too much room
for limitation of student voices
by Ellen Austin
Hazelwood stories: I began my journalism advising career in Minnesota, a Hazelwood state. Teaching at a small public school, the shadow of Hazelwood was a reality. My principal wanted to read the paper in advance, and tried to use Hazelwood as a justification for that request. I was lucky that I had some great mentors to call at NSPA in Minneapolis and at other successful newspapers in the area who coached me.
It took several conversations to bring my principal to a place where “reviewing” the paper became, “Please get me a copy before everyone else reads it, so I know what’s happening if the phone’s start ringing.”
I was lucky: I had a reasonable principal whose major concern was doing his job well for the school at large. He was not a martinet, and he was comfortable with the idea that students were learning firsthand the tools of democracy through their work on their school paper.
Not every student article shines as a sample of great writing and bias-free prose. Not every student article remains fair to the community about which it is written. But not allowing students to practice their right to free speech and freedom of the press in our nation’s schools is akin to never letting a driver practice driving a car before handing her keys and turning her loose on an interstate at the age of 18.
A ruling like Hazelwood, with its ambiguities and wide latitude of interpretation, leaves too much room for an administrator to create a vise-like grip on the voices of students.
Democracy, like driving, requires practice and a safe place for that practice.
Hazelwood ages, but the online world continues to morph and expand, The restrictive powers granted to school officials through Hazelwood can allow the squelching of trained, guided, and curricular work in journalism in a school setting.
But, by disabling the campus option for debate and discussion, by removing a trained teacher who can provide ethics training and consistency in writing instruction, and by preventing an adult sounding board for the discussion of issues being discussed, students can easily choose to circumvent school papers and websites completely, and instead go online through any number of sites that live outside the purview of the school’s reach — and outside the rules of good journalistic practices.
The sorrow I have about Hazelwood’s chilling effect goes beyond the students, however; I’ve watched dozens of passionate, skilled, well-trained adviser colleagues forced out of their classrooms by fearful or angry administrators in retaliation for work — usually, the ideas of the work — published in a school newspaper. Another longtime adviser in a nearby state resigned just last week, posting a farewell note to our national online group about her fatigue in trying to do a good job in the face of constant restriction.
This country’s foundations were laid with fractious debates and intense discussions. “Being nice and avoiding controversy” is not language found in our constitutional amendments. What does abide in our Constitution’s language is the emphasis on informed, civil debate and on a citizenry that not only has rights but the freedom to exercise those rights.
Ellen Austin is the 2012 Dow Jones News Fund Journalism Teacher of the Year.
Read More
Hazelwood’s costs: Open forum status helps win court case,
then stripped, not returned
By Kevin Smyth
Hazelwood stories: When I joined JagWire in September 2007 as a 51-year old adviser with no advising background, and limited experience as a student journalist, I had no idea I’d become a poster boy for “things that can go wrong your first year as adviser.” It’s been a difficult story, one that’s not finished, but I have hope better days are ahead.
In 2007, JagWire was an award-winning newsmagazine, attracting knowledgeable, talented writers. They took on some important edgy topics including pornography and student gambling. Considered an open forum for student expression under the rules enumerated in the Hazelwood decision, JagWire was entirely directed by students, which occasionally resulted in disagreements with Principal Brian Lowney. But it also paid off with state and national awards.
When I took over in 2007 I had a staff that was large, experienced, and led by a student editorial board that was enthusiastic and knew a lot more about running the paper than I did. In January 2008 JagWire proceeded with plans for an issue on oral sex. It was a serious focus topic with articles on student attitudes, student health, and district health education related to this topic.
It also included student interviews that detailed their experiences, and, with their permission, named names. Needless to say, JagWire 8.5 provoked considerable controversy. It won a best of show award from the Washington Journalism Education Association for 2008.
It won two additional prizes, though much less desirable. In the spring of 2008 the Puyallup School District was sued for invasion of privacy, negligence, and intentional infliction of harm relating to the publication of student names. The following September the school district informed us we lost our open forum status. JagWire and the other high school newspapers in our district would be subject to prior review and prior restraint.
Since the fall of 2008, JagWire struggled with the loss of our forum status and the independence it insured. Some of the problems were logistical. How could we meet our deadlines while insuring Mr. Lowney approved our work? Others were far more substantial.
During the 2009-10 school year it was as if the paper was reviewed by the lawyers representing the district. Our case was headed for trial in the spring, and JagWire was enveloped in an aura of tension and anxiety. Our issue on censorship in the fall was confiscated with a resulting loss of ad revenue.
Some of my students’ best work ever was penciled out for fear it was too controversial. Meetings with an increasingly uncomfortable principal ended in tears and frustration. Protests and appeals resulted in phone calls to lawyers. This was not the way to run a newspaper.
In the years that followed, it was as though JagWire lost its heart. Each year the paper produced some fine student journalists. We did eight issues per year. We traveled to state and national conventions.
My kids produced fine work and we won our fair share of prizes in write off competitions. Though I continued to promote the view JagWire was their forum and I promised to support them any way I could, the paper lost its edge. Students questioned taking on controversial or cutting edge issues when their work could simply be eliminated.
When Mr. Lowney, never an enthusiastic enforcer, lamented that he missed the edginess of the old days, I responded morosely, “They’ve been trained.”
In the spring of 2010 the JagWire case went to trial.
In a 10-2 verdict the jury found in favor of our paper and my students. One of the chief defenses used by our legal team was that our paper was run as an open forum, with students accepting the responsibility for what they wrote. The court determined JagWire was a limited public forum.
When the case was appealed to Washington Court of Appeals Division II, the appellate justices affirmed this finding. Plaintiffs’ counsel, contending that the “open forum” is a unicorn, a kind of myth that does not protect student press rights filed its petition with the Washington State Supreme Court in September 2012 to overturn the unanimous appellate ruling. (Ed. note: The Washington State Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal)
In the fall of 2012 I am encouraged by my delightful staff and talented editor- in-chief. There are rumors afoot there is interest in several controversial topics relevant to school climate here at Emerald Ridge High School.
We have a new district superintendent. There is discussion of taking the paper online beginning with a blog. Despite the district’s legal success and a new leader, it isn’t clear the restoration of our forum status is on the horizon.
Read More
Tweet6: Blueprint provides outline for passing free-expression laws
Eight states have passed laws to provide Hazelwood immunity. Could you protect yourselves? #25HZLWD http://jeasprc.org/tweet6-blueprint-provides-outline-for-passing-free-expression-laws
It’s obvious, by the frequent reports of administrative prior review and restraint across the country, that there is a lack of clarity about the law and the First Amendment rights of students.
The waters, muddied by the 1988 Hazelwood Supreme Court decision, are much more clear now in eight states where anti-Hazelwood legislation has passed: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Oregon and North Dakota.
For the student press in all other states, there is a constant tug of war between student journalists and their administrators over what is allowed: Under what circumstances is administrative control over content justified? What recourse do students have when their rights have been infringed upon? What is the role of the adviser? Who is liable when unprotected speech slips through and is published?
It has become clear that, in the states where legislation has passed, these questions now have answers; in the states where there is no clarifying law, the answers to these questions are ill defined. There are no winners in the resulting tug-of-war between school administrators, their districts, and the student press.
in March 2012, a team of SPRC Commission members poured over archives documenting successes and failures in passing legislation, and created a downloadable “Promoting Scholastic Press Rights Legislation: A Blueprint for Success.” This document was updated in February 2016.
This guide is not a guarantee of success, but the SPRC hopes that it will offer insights into the challenges, and will be a practical reference for those who choose to navigate the unpredictable waters of the legislative process. The information will also be available on our homepage, in the menu section, on the right.
To help provide background information about the Hazelwood decision, download this legal research by the First Amendment Center:
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/handout1a.aspx?id=13970
Additional resources:
- Information about states that have passed state legislation OK
http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/statelegislation.asp
- Model Policies, Legislation and Regulation
http://www.splc.org/page/model
- California Leonard Law
http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/law_library.asp?id=13
- Press freedom at a public junior and senior high school
http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?subcat=1
- About our legal system
http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=1
- Cure Hazelwood
http://www.splc.org/section/cure-hazelwood
Read More
It started on a ‘day like no other,’
but now it’s time for a change
by H. L. Hall
Hazelwood stories: It was a day like no other day. It was Jan. 13, 1988. For those involved with high school journalism it was an unlucky day.
A decision the United States Supreme Court made that day has continued to have a great impact on high school publications for 25 years, and it may continue to have a great impact for years to come, unless JEA and concerned advisers can do something to reverse the course.
Shortly after the Court announced its decision, Principal Franklin McCallie entered my classroom at Kirkwood High School.
“Did you hear,” he asked?
I knew immediately what he was talking about.
“I’m devastated,” I said, “but I’m not surprised.”
We talked about the consequences of the decision. Fortunately, I knew there would be no changes regarding the Kirkwood Call (newspaper) or Pioneer (yearbook.) Both had always operated as a designated public forum.
During my 34 years in the Kirkwood district I had the good fortune of working for three principals who supported the right of students to make wise decisions. Therefore, I never suffered the fate other advisers and their students did following the Hazelwood ruling. It’s been almost 14 years since I retired, and it’s still obvious the Tinker Standard, not the Hazelwood standard, is still in effect in Kirkwood.
Even though Hazelwood never affected my students, I was acutely aware of how it impacted other schools in the St. Louis area and across the country.
When Principal Gene Reynolds at Hazelwood East decided in May 1983 that articles in the Spectrum dealing with teenage pregnancy and the effects of divorce on students should not be published, Bob Stergos, the former adviser of the paper, called me. Stergos had resigned a few weeks earlier and the Hazelwood district replaced him with Howard Emerson, an interim adviser to serve until the end of the school year.
I had served as a mentor for Stergos as he wrote his master’s thesis on student press rights. Stergos also knew there had never been censorship at Kirkwood, so that’s why he called me to ask for advice. I suggested he have the students contact the Student Press Law Center, and then I urged him to remove himself from the confrontation. There was already animosity between him and the administration.
The students contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, and they decided to take the issue to the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging the district had violated their First Amendment rights. The students lost.
Although the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 against the students Jan 13, 1988.
Following that ruling, journalism advisers throughout Missouri organized to try to get a state bill passed to override Hazelwood. For four consecutive years, McCallie and others testified before state congressional committees in favor of the bill, but to no avail. Since the case originated in Missouri, we knew it was an uphill battle, but we kept trying.
The bill went to different committees each year, but we always heard the same arguments from administrators in the Hazelwood district and from the legislators themselves. Their main concern was fear of a libel suit, so there had to be some control placed on student journalists. Those fighting for the bill were never able to get any committee to report it out to the full legislature for consideration.
Aaron Manfull, a Missouri adviser, tells me he is not aware of any effort still going on in the state to get a bill passed. As far as I know there hasn’t been any effort since the 1990s. Even if it is an uphill battle, the efforts should continue.
McCallie was the only Missouri administrator speaking on behalf of the bill. He has now retired. I hope other administrators will renew the fight. Missouri is the “Show Me” state. For 25 years state legislators have shown they don’t support student freedom of expression. It’s time they change their minds and join legislators in those states who do. The “Show Me” slogan should become “We Will Show You.”
It’s time. Twenty-five years has been long enough.
H.L.Hall is the 1983 Dow Jones News Fund High School Journalism Teacher of the Year and JEA’s first Yearbook Adviser of the Year. He has won numerous awards himself, and his students dominated scholastic journalism awards for many years. In his retirement, he continues to work with JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Commission and serves as an adjunct professor for Kent State University’s Center for Scholastic Journalism.
Read More
High school students, teachers
report student media censorship
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Twenty-five years after the Supreme Court limited First Amendment protections for high school student journalists, a survey of students and media advisers attending a national journalism convention suggests that censorship in their schools is a common occurrence.
Of the 4,540 students and teachers who attended the National High School Journalism Convention in San Antonio, Tex., Nov. 15-18, 2012, 500 students and 78 advisers responded to survey questions asking about their experiences with censorship of student media.
Significant numbers of both students (42 percent) and advisers (41 percent) said school officials had told them not to publish or air something. Fifty-four percent of students reported a school official reviews the content of their student news medium before it is published or aired. And 58 percent of advisers said someone other than students had the final authority to determine the content of the student media they advise.
Read More