In 1988, the US Supreme Court's Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier ruling had a jarring and enduring impact on student expression within public schools. This decision allowed administrators to limit certain forms of speech if they were not consistent with the school’s definition of “the shared values of a civilized social order." With five justices in favor and three opposed, the Hazelwood precedent remains an unjust stopgap to student speech and a piece of weak jurisprudence that overly ceded censorship power to the subjectivity of public school officials.
The Case
At Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri, students in a Journalism II class delved into sensitive topics in their school-funded paper, The Spectrum, discussing divorce and teen pregnancy. Principal Robert Reynolds, concerned about the content, removed two pages before publication without informing the students. Believing their free speech rights were violated, the students sought legal redress. After upward appeals, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Legal Floundering
It’s hard to underemphasize how much of a reversal this was for the trend of student speech. Before Hazelwood, courts broadly applied the Tinker standard, set in a 1969 speech case named Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The standard placed the onus on schools to prove that student speech would cause imminent and “substantial” disruption of the school environment.
Why was this shift so significant? Well, Hazelwood empowered administrators to censor speech based on their subjective interpretation of the school's educational mission. Such overbroad discretion jeopardizes discussions on controversial and morally ambiguous topics. Issues like birth control, abortion, gender identity, and police brutality can be silenced if an administrator can vaguely tie them to an educational mission.
Not only is this incredibly limiting and fear-inducing for student journalists, but it’s also bad jurisprudence that engenders inconsistent application and fails to protect marginalized voices and topics.
Consider the Students
Hazelwood also failed to address a glaring inconsistency in the legal treatment of teenage maturity. A high school student, considered mature enough for adult responsibilities in other contexts, is denied the ability to consider the impacts of their speech under Hazelwood. Furthermore, an 18-year-old, legally an adult, can still be censored by school authorities. This disregard for adolescent capacity undermines the educational mission of schools as cradles for democratic thought.
Journalism programs were specifically restricted. With editorial autonomy eroded and publications subject to administrative whims, the next generation of journalists lost vital opportunities for critical thinking about what causes harm and disruption. Hazelwood weakened the educational value of journalism programs and diluted crucial First Amendment protections.
To rectify this long-standing infringement on student speech and nurture a capable, conscientious generation of student journalists, the Supreme Court must revisit Hazelwood. If not to reinstate the Tinker standard for public school newspapers, the court must at least clarify what constitutes a disruption to a school's educational mission and reaffirm the importance of maintaining a free press, including student press.
Comments