For three years, Matt Williams worked to become editor-in-chief of Eagle’s Eye, the newspaper at Enloe High School in Raleigh, N.C. In his journalism class and an internship at the North Raleigh Extra and stints as a reporter, columnist and news editor, he learned about the freedoms of speech and press guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as well as the ethical responsibilities journalists accept as they exercise those freedoms.

      But procedures at Enloe High taught Eagle’s Eye staff members a lesson of a different sort: the experience of submitting the publication for prior review by the principal. By the end of his senior year, Williams knew he did not have the final say on decisions about the paper’s content; that power belonged to Principal Lloyd Gardner.

      Williams’ realization was far from unique. In the 11 years since the U.S. Supreme Court gave high school principals the authority to control school-sponsored publications, student journalists nationwide have learned that their press freedom has limits.

      What are the ramifications for student journalists when school systems invest the power of final say in principals, superintendents or school boards? What alternatives do North Carolina student journalists have so that they may receive a practical, well-rounded education in the power and responsibilities of a free press?

Eagle  in the middle

      In November 1998, Eagle’s Eye  sold ad space to the North Carolina Lambda Youth Network. The network defines itself as a leadership development group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and straight young people.

      Lambda faxed over a copy of the ad to Enloe, where the adviser received it. She expressed concern about it and told Williams and the editor who had sold the ad to take it to Gardner for approval.

      The two students met with the principal. He looked at the ad and had two problems with it: First, Lambda itself was controversial, and publication of the ad could lead some readers to think the high school was endorsing the group. Secondly, the wording of the ad gave him pause. It led with “Are you gay, lesbian, bisexual or a straight ally looking for support?”

      When Gardner raised the first objection, the two editors asked why it was OK to run an ad from a Christian group but not from a gay and lesbian group. An advertisement for Vision 21, a youth fellowship group sponsored by Raleigh’s Westminster Church, had appeared in the Oct. 19, 1998, Eagle’s Eye.

      According to Williams, Gardner said he would check with area Assistant Superintendent Julia Mobley and get back to them. A couple of days later, he said “no” to both ads.

      Rejecting the Lambda ad, he cited a Wake County school board policy that says administrators may halt distribution of a school-sponsored publication if it “associates the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.” (The previous year, the paper ran a political ad by then-candidate for U.S. Senate John Edwards on more than one occasion. No objections were raised.)

      Rejecting the Vision 21 ad, Gardner said it shouldn’t have been printed because readers could infer that the school was advocating one religion over others by publishing it. (Although the staff presented the Oct. 19 paper for review, Williams said, it is likely that the Vision 21 ad was not yet laid out. The review process generally took a day or two, and the staff used that time to finish ad production and placement.) Nevertheless, Williams said, “It wasn’t until we came to [him with] the Lambda ad that he had objections to it.”

      The two editors sought to meet Mobley, but schedule conflicts prevented a get-together until February. They brought a revised Lambda ad that aimed to address the concerns about the first ad’s wording. But, according to Williams, Mobley supported Gardner’s decision and, when pressed about the Edwards ad, said it should not have been allowed, either.

      Williams filed a formal appeal to Gardner. When the principal did not respond in the time the policy allotted for an appeal, Williams decided he “didn’t want to be stalled anymore” and appealed to the superintendent. A photographer from The (Raleigh) News & Observer was present when he did so.

      “It didn’t seem right that the administration could block this kind of free expression from being in the student newspaper,” Williams told The N&O.

      The publication of the first N&O  article turned a school situation into a community controversy. The N&O, the Independent weekly alternative newspaper, Broughton High School's newspaper, three local television stations and the Student Press Law Center Report  picked up on the case. For a week after the first N&O article ran, students wore purple ribbons in support of Williams and Eagle’s Eye. Classmates’ support “made me so proud to be an Enloe student,” he said.

      The case became more complicated. Williams said he tried to expose the problems with the Wake publications policy while keeping the heat from Gardner. But when a letter to The N&O  suggested that Gardner be fired, Williams said, “I felt worse about that than about anything that had happened so far.”

      That letter inspired angry reactions in the Enloe community and outside of it. On a day when Gardner was away from the school, teachers made intercom announcements during two periods to solicit support for a letter to the editor from the faculty. Williams himself wrote a letter to The N&O  distinguishing between the principal, whom he supported, and his decision.

      “I didn’t want it to be an issue of ‘Here’s this bratty kid trying to pick a fight with the principal,’ ” Williams said.

      In late March, the Wake County superintendent upheld Gardner’s decision. Then, the school board attempted to make its decision during a closed meeting. Williams fought that effort, saying it was important to have an open meeting because he wanted the board “to make the decision in public and face the consequences of it.”

      A three-member panel from the school board met in open session in April and supported Gardner’s decision. Williams offered to change the Eagle’s Eye editorial board statement to say that ads and editorial copy do not reflect the opinions of the school or its administration. But the board said that would not be enough to remove the school from liability.

      “I’m not looking for some kind of sweeping change,” Williams told The N&O. “If the school board is determined to exercise control, I’d like it to be reasonable, or it’s just a blank check for censorship.”

From sea to shining sea

      Student editors, advisers and administrators at Enloe are far from alone in struggling with questions of censorship. In 1998, a record 321 high school student journalists or advisers contacted the Student Press Law Center for legal help regarding censorship issues. This was the fourth consecutive year that calls set a record. High schools accounted for 719 of the 1,597 requests for help that the center received in 1998; censorship questions led the list of concerns among high school students.

      But statistics tell only part of the story. Students themselves tell the other part — the frustration of learning about freedoms they cannot put into practice.

      Recently at the 75th annual Journalism Education Association convention in Atlanta, students from across the United States described a range of censorship experiences. Some cases involved censorship by advisers, the teachers that schools have hired to teach journalism and oversee publications such as newspapers or yearbooks. Other cases involved self-censorship, in which students decided not to publish sensitive stories or tackle controversial issues because they feared a backlash, not only from administrators but also from peers questioning their school loyalty.

      But most cases that students shared involved prior review, the practice of administrators’ reading of student journalists’ work prior to publication. Frequently, the practice led to orders from administrators to change or delete parts of the publication. Targets of prior review involved everything from news stories on hazing among athletes to advertisements from Planned Parenthood.

      “Prior review is the bane of our existence,” Student Press Law Center Director Mark Goodman told students, advisers and others at the JEA convention. “As a practical matter, prior review is a guaranteed recipe for conflict.”

      In North Carolina, prior review is a practical reality for many county and city school systems. A survey developed for this project found more than one-third of the state’s school systems — 40 out of 117 — have written policies that govern high school publications such as newspapers and yearbooks. Of those systems, 19 explicitly give principals the right to exercise prior review of student publications.

      Even in counties such as Wake, in which prior review is not explicitly granted to principals, instances such as the 1998-99 Eagle’s Eye case show that principals will exercise the power to prevent content they deem controversial from being published in the school newspaper.

Protecting the gateway

      Student journalists in North Carolina and elsewhere lack the full First Amendment protection available a generation ago to their counterparts. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District, established a foundation of equal speech and press protection for students.

      Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion for the Court, which was charged with determining whether it was constitutional for a Des Moines, Iowa, school system to suspend students who chose to wear black armbands to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The Court determined that wearing the armbands was symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Fortas wrote:

 

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This had been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years ...

      Additionally, the Court found there was no indication that the wearing of the armbands disrupted school or classroom activity. “Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would ‘materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,’ the prohibition cannot be sustained,” Fortas wrote.

      The Court also noted that a school memo prepared after the students’ suspension did not list possible disruption as a reason for the restriction. “ ... The action of the school authorities appears to have been based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression ... of opposition to this Nation’s part in the conflagration in Vietnam,” Fortas wrote.

      In fact, the Court found, the school decided to issue the restriction after one of the participating students told the journalism teacher that he wanted to write an article on the war for the school paper. “The student was dissuaded,” the court noted, parenthetically.

      The Tinker case was a strong endorsement for students’ free expression rights: “In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views,” Fortas wrote.

      Nevertheless, the Court did recognize the need to balance individual rights with the rights of others in the school setting:

 

... conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place or type of behavior — materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

      The Court’s decision was not unanimous: Justices Hugo Black and John Harlan dissented, with the words of Justice Black (usually a proponent of First Amendment freedom) a bracing alert to students that the majority opinion might not find universal acceptance:

 

It is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases and when he pleases. Our Court has decided precisely the opposite. ... One does not need to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to know that after the Court’s holding today some students in Iowa schools and indeed in all schools will be ready, able and willing to defy their teachers on practically all orders. ... Students engaged in such activities are apparently confident that they know far more about how to operate public school systems than do their parents, teachers and elected school officials.

 

      Black’s dissent shows a combination of a fear of student anarchy (a fear perhaps rooted in the common 1969 reports of antiwar and civil rights protests) and a condescension toward American citizens considered “immature” in belief as well as in age. That same combination would prove significant in the Court's reasoning in two cases decided almost two decades later.

Order from the Court

      If a conservative Court were looking to bolster school administrators’ rights to discipline students engaging in immature displays of speech, it could not have found a better example than the 1986 case of Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser. The case developed from a speech that Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Washington state, gave during a pep assembly. Fraser was nominating a classmate for elective office and decided to make his pitch this way:

 

      I know a man who is firm — he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm — but most ... of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.

      Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts — he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally — he succeeds. ...

      Jeff is a man who will go to the very end, even the climax, for each and every one of you. So vote for Jeff for A.S.B. vice president — he’ll never come between you and the best our high school can be.

      According to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, a school counselor noted that some students reacted to the speech by hooting and yelling while others used gestures that “graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to”; some “appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech.” The day after the speech, the assistant principal called Fraser into her office and told him that he had violated a school disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of obscene language. He was suspended for three days and was told his name would be removed from a list of candidates for graduation speaker.

      Fraser appealed using school district procedures; when that failed, he and his father sued. Citing Tinker, the District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Fraser (then elected graduation speaker by a write-in vote of his classmates). The school district appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower courts’ rulings.

      Distinguishing between the armband protest of Tinker and the current case, Burger said lower courts failed to recognize the intrusive effect of Fraser’s speech on other students: “Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.” Burger then noted that rules of parliamentary practice restrict U.S. representatives from using “impertinent” and “indecent” speech and that similar language exists in the Senate: “Can it be that what is proscribed in the halls of Congress is beyond the reach of school officials to regulate?”

      He and the Court majority immediately answered that question with a distinction that the Tinker Court refused to make:

 

The First Amendment guarantees wide freedom in matters of adult public discourse. ... It does not follow, however, that simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. ... [T]he constitutional rights of students in a public are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.

      The Court also found that “the determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board” and that “the schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent or offensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused boy.”

      Justices Byron White, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor joined in the majority opinion, while Justice William Brennan concurred in the judgment but offered a warning about the breadth of the decision. He challenged the majority characterization of Fraser’s remarks as “obscene,” “vulgar” and “offensively lewd” and said Fraser could not have been disciplined for these remarks had they been made outside of school.

      The issue, as he saw it, was that

 

 ... the State has interests in teaching high school students how to conduct civil and effective public discourse and in avoiding disruption of educational school activities. Thus, the Court holds that under certain circumstances, high school students may properly be reprimanded for giving a speech at a high school assembly which school officials conclude disrupted the school's educational mission.

 

      To some observers, Fraser exemplified the adage that “bad cases make bad law.” A 1986 issue of the Student Press Law Center Report concluded, “Because the case questions the definition of student speech that creates a ‘material and substantial disruption of school activities,’ the authority of school officials to control ‘indecent’ speech that is not obscene and the constitutionality of school policies regulating speech, it could have implications for the free expression rights of student journalists.”

      Two years later, the implications of the Fraser case became crystal-clear. Three of the judges in the majority camp for Fraser — White, Rehnquist and O'Connor — formed three-fifths of the majority in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. They were joined by John Paul Stevens (who dissented in Fraser) and Antonin Scalia, who took Rehnquist’s spot on the Court when Rehnquist replaced Burger as chief justice.

      Hazelwood, as White wrote in the majority opinion, concerned “the extent to which educators may exercise editorial control over the contents of a high school newspaper produced as part of the school’s journalism curriculum.” It involved Spectrum, a student newspaper at a suburban St. Louis high school.

      The adviser typically turned in each issue of Spectrum to Principal Robert E. Reynolds for prior review. The May 13, 1983, edition included a story that, according to the majority Court opinion, “described three students’ experiences with pregnancy; the other discussed the impact of divorce on students at the school.” The principal raised objections to both stories and ordered the adviser to withhold them from publication. The student editors objected to the decision and sued, contending a First Amendment violation.

      The majority Court disagreed. Citing Fraser, the Court found that the students’ First Amendment claims must be considered in the context of what the school board, not the federal courts, deems appropriate. It first dealt with whether Spectrum was a forum for public expression (a distinction that would give the paper greater freedom from restriction) and found it was not. It was considered part of the educational curriculum, and the adviser had regularly given the principal right of prior review and approval. “Accordingly, school officials were entitled to regulate the contents of Spectrum in any reasonable manner. ... It is this standard, rather than our decision in Tinker, that governs this case.”

      The Hazelwood decision effectively rewrote the ground rules for school-sponsored high school newspapers. The Court determined that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

      “It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so ‘directly and sharply implicated,’ ... as to require judicial intervention,” White added.

      The Court also found,

 

Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student expression [school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions and other expressive activities] to assure that ... the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school. Hence, a school may in its capacity as publisher of a school newspaper ... ‘disassociate itself,’ ... not only from speech that would ‘substantially interfere with [its] work ... or infringe upon the rights of other students,’ ... but also from speech that is, for example, ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences. A school must be able to set high standards for the student speech that is disseminated under its auspices. ... A school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex or conduct otherwise inconsistent with ‘the shared values of a civilized social order,’ ... or to associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.

      Student journalists could take comfort only in the dissent from Justice William Brennan, who thought the principal clearly violated the First Amendment. Brennan said the majority decision “erects a taxonomy of school censorship” and, quoting an earlier Court decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, found that “the Court today ‘teach[es] youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.’ ... The young men and women of Hazelwood East expected a civics lesson, but not the one the Court teaches them today.” Nevertheless, Hazelwood became the standard that controls much of the high school press more than a decade later.

In the aftermath of Hazelwood

      Supporters and critics of the majority Hazelwood decision lined up almost immediately. Students at the South Bend (Ind.) Tribune wrote about their reactions to the case for the paper’s weekly “Next Generation Page.” Dawn Hoffman, a high school senior, wrote:

 

In the majority decision, the justices said the high school paper is not a public forum and that the audiences are immature. But if the students are engaging in the activities reporter, they are old enough to read about such activities. Pregnancy and divorce are just a few of the problems in today’s society. Students should be informed about the world around them. If adults do not inform them adequately, student journalists should. How are aspiring reporters supposed to learn how to write about mature issues if they are not allowed to print them? Students should not be expected to report on quiz bowl and choir concerts forever.

      Jennifer Crosson, a high school junior, wrote:

 

Ideally, the goal of a journalism course should be to give students some level of experience in collecting information on a topic, developing this information into a story and revising the product to ensure effective coverage of the topic. Unless students can become proficient in all three of these skills, they will not be equipped with the fundamentals for a career in journalism. Of course, not all high school journalism students will go on to become professional journalists. But ... if the educational mission of a journalism class is to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning journalistic technique, that atmosphere should be one in which the students can practice journalism as if they were working for an actual independent newspaper.

      Nevertheless, the Tribune’s editorial board supported the Court. It wasn't alone; the Freedom Forum publication Death by Cheeseburger notes:

 

Many of the 1988 editorials commenting on Hazelwood in the professional press almost seemed to mock the students for their arrogance in believing they should be allowed to cover what was important to them. Comparing the principal to a newspaper publisher, they said young people might as well learn early that reporters and editors don't always get their way. Most avoided discussing the principal's unique role as an agent of the government, from which the First Amendment is intended to protect U.S. citizens.

      In addition, that comparison fails to acknowledge the reality that principals, as sources in stories that seek official comment, are put in a conflict-of-interest position of reviewing quotes they provided to student reporters.

      Meanwhile, the Hazelwood decision met with some public support. Years after the ruling, retired journalism adviser H.L. Hall, president of the Journalism Education Association, told the Student Press Law Center Report:

 

I think the public does not understand that the student press is really controlled by the same laws concerning libel, obscenity [and] invasion of privacy that the professional press is. I know I had lots of parents tell me in 1988 that they were glad about the Hazelwood decision, as they thought it was time some controls were placed on the student press. They didn’t realize there were already controls.

 

      Amid a potentially more restrictive environment without certain public support, student newspaper advisers and staffs post-Hazelwood have had to look to professional organizations such as the Society of Professional Journalists and the Journalism Education Association, state media organizations and the Student Press Law Center for guidance and support.

Student press in the Tar Heel State

      Eleven years after the Hazelwood decision, North Carolina student journalists continue to struggle with its impact, as the case of Matt Williams and the Eagle’s Eye indicates. In her 1991 doctoral dissertation, “Free to Speak? The First Amendment and North Carolina High School Journalism,” Kay D. Phillips detailed the findings of a statewide survey she had taken of journalism advisers: “This study shows that North Carolina high school journalists experience prior review, prior restraint and censorship as basic tenets of their journalism education. ... [It] reveals that not only is free expression not secure for high school journalists, it is, in most cases, not available.”

      Among Phillips’ findings, culled from surveys of 93 advisers:

     In a majority of North Carolina schools, advisers report that principals claim the right to censor but that many rarely use it, with more exerting that right since Hazelwood, and although advisers say their schools have no system of prior review or prior restraint, 99 percent of them describe such a system.

     Forty-two advisers (45%) said the principal has the right to make all final decisions about the paper.

     Most of the respondents believe the purpose of the school newspaper is to serve as a public relations tool for the school.

     In all schools, advisers exert subtle pressure and, in practice, most of them are censors ... both cutting controversial material and instituting a policy or atmosphere of intimidation that causes students to refrain from printing certain materials in the school newspaper.

      “The North Carolina adviser must know how to allow students access to the broadest range of ideas and opinions possible in their educational development, as well as how to develop the policies and programs that enhance freedom of expression,” Phillips concluded. “Clearly, persistent student editor deference to administrative authority has a stultifying effect on the student press.”

      Eight years later, two surveys developed for this project offer another snapshot of North Carolina public high schools and their newspaper programs. The first survey was sent to superintendents of 100 county and 17 city school systems and 10 schools independent of those systems (such as the N.C. School of Science and Math). According to that survey:

     34 of 100 county school systems and six of 17 city school systems have written policies that govern student publications. The county school systems are Alexander, Chatham, Cleveland, Currituck, Durham, Duplin, Edgecombe, Forsyth, Gaston, Haywood, Henderson, Hertford, Hyde, Jackson, Iredell, Lee, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Randolph, Rowan, Sampson, Stanly, Surry, Tyrrell, Vance, Wake, Warren, Watauga and Wilson. The city school systems are Clinton, Elkin, Hickory, Kannapolis, Newton-Conover and Roanoke Rapids.

     Of those systems, 17 county school systems and two city systems have policies mandating prior review: Cleveland, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gaston, Haywood, Hertford, Jackson, Lee, Nash, Northampton, Person, Randolph, Rowan, Sampson, Stanly, Surry and Vance counties and Hickory and Roanoke Rapids city systems.

     Five county school systems have written policies governing Web sites but not print publications: Guilford, Harnett, Robeson, Union and Wilkes.

     Among the counties without written policies, unwritten procedures may nevertheless be standard. For example, Bladen County has an unwritten policy of screening “by a supervisor,” while Mooresville City schools have informal, unwritten policies.

      An analysis of the publications policies from the 40 school systems shows how strongly the Hazelwood decision has influenced administrators. Phrases lifted directly from the majority decision provide the backbone of the policies. For example, the Eagle’s Eye controversy revolved around this regulation that makes use of two Hazelwood phrases:

 

The principal may also prohibit distribution of any school-sponsored publication which: a) exposes its particular audience to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity; or b.) associates the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy. (emphasis the researcher’s)

      In addition to appearing in the Wake County policy, this restriction appears, word for word, in the publications policies of Cleveland, Currituck, Edgecombe, Hertford, Nash, Northampton, Person and Stanly counties, and Roanoke Rapids city schools. Interestingly enough, even though most of these nine policies are uniform, one difference is significant: Currituck’s and Wake’s delete a section on “Review Before Distribution” that mandates prior review. (Of course, as the Eagle’s Eye case indicates, prior review can still be what is practiced, even if it isn’t what is mandated.)

      Publications policies in North Carolina range from a brief sentence or two to many pages. One, Durham County’s, invests students and advisers with much of the power and responsibility that comes with press freedom. Another, Haywood County’s, specifies that “student publications belong to the school, not just to the students who compile them.” (For a complete look at four counties’ publications policies, see Appendix A.)

      The second survey was sent to 415 principals of North Carolina public schools that teach students ages 14 to 18. Most were traditional public high schools, but also included were alternative schools, hospital schools, charter schools, schools that serve students with disabilities and a few junior high schools that include ninth-graders. That survey found:

 

     177 of the schools that responded have a newspaper; 83 do not (52 of the 83 were traditional high schools). One, Union Pines High School, is resuming publication of a newspaper after 15 years.

     Of the schools that have a newspaper, 68 have their own written policies; 86 do not (22 did not respond to the question).

     Of the 68 that have a written policy, 38 wrote the policy after the Hazelwood decision; 16 continue to operate from a pre-Hazelwood policy, and 14 did not respond.

     Of the newspapers that no longer exist, one ceased publication between 1975 and 1980; one between 1980 and 1985; none between 1986 and 1990; 13 between 1991 and 1995; and 17 between 1996 and this year. The survey did not seek to ascertain why a publication died, but one principal volunteered that a lack of money was the reason.

 

      This last finding is perhaps most troubling, especially when taking into account the fact that 259 of 415 principals’ surveys were returned. It is quite possible that school newspapers have died out at some of the 156 other schools.

      When the Hazelwood decision came down, Temple University professor Thomas Eveslage offered this observation, which now sounds prescient, “Administrators must shoulder a heavy burden as newspaper publisher. Financial liability goes with the job. Added responsibility could encourage administrators to drop the student paper.”

Why all the fuss?

      The News & Observer’s coverage of the Eagle’s Eye case prompted a variety of reactions, with some supporting Principal Gardner’s decision and others objecting to it. One letter writer took issue with a quote from Kay D. Phillips of the North Carolina Scholastic Media Association, who said the Wake school policy gives principals too much authority to determine what students may write in public school papers:

 

It is this very attitude, that we hear and see over and over again, that students can decide equally with adults and educators what is appropriate behavior and thought, which leads to horrible tragedies such as the shooting in Littleton, Colo. ... Young people need direction and guidance — schools should be able to give it and receive the support of parents and the community.

 

      This letter writer wasn’t the only person who has linked questions about student expression to the deaths of 14 students and one teacher in Columbine High School in April. Students — some journalists and some not — also expressed concern about fallout from the incident, noting harassment or threats of suspension in connection with what they had written, according to an article in the fall 1999 issue of the Student Press Law Center Report. The American Civil Liberties Union successfully defended 11 students in Ohio who were suspended for their contributions to an off-campus Goth Web site. A California principal ordered a yearbook staff to remove a section about students playing paintball.

      “Students and advisers everywhere are wondering whether Columbine will have a long-lasting chilling effect on student expression,” the article reported .

      In his Hazelwood dissent, Justice Brennan reflected on the importance of the public school:

 

Public education serves vital national interests in preparing the Nation’s youth for life in our increasingly complex society and for the duties of citizenship in our democratic Republic. ... The public school conveys to our young the information and tools required not merely to survive in, but to contribute to, civilized society.

      When educators exercise the power to nullify the work of student journalists, how does that foster the students’ decision-making skills or develop their sense of news judgment? When content is restricted in student publications because of fears that the school will be associated with a particular point of view on a controversial subject, will the adults of the 21st century be left with the blandest of publications that don’t provide the information they need not merely to survive in, but contribute to, society?

      Dale Harrison, an assistant professor at Youngstown State University in Ohio, offers another reason for concern: Some college administrators are now seeking to apply Hazelwood to their publications: “...[I]f federal courts fail to rebuke censorship of the college press clearly, First Amendment protections may be lost for thousands of student journalists — a poor lesson, indeed, for the budding reporters who hope to bring you tomorrow’s news.”

      Though it focuses on college journalists, Harrison’s argument is a reminder that some of today’s student journalists will become tomorrow’s professional journalists. Lending support to that argument are the experiences of three of yesterday’s high school journalists, all of whom today are professional copy editors: Dave Lee of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Katie Schlegel of The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition and Wayne Countryman of the Baltimore Sun.

      “I was the managing editor at my high school newspaper, The Increscent, which is Wisconsin’s oldest high school newspaper,” Lee said. “I think that had a profound effect on my decision to become a journalist, but it really had nothing to do with the profession itself. Rather, it was the camaraderie and the teamwork that drew me in.

      “When I went to college, I had absolutely no intention to become a journalist (I started pre-medicine). After shifting majors many times, I decided to re-enter journalism based on my wonderful experience at my high school newspaper,” Lee said. “I thought the college newspaper experience would be the same as my high school experience. I was right, and my appreciation for journalism and copy editing grew while I was there.”

      Schlegel graduated from Hilliard High School in Ohio, where she spent her junior and senior years on its newsmagazine: “I thought I wanted to be a reporter. But the experience I had as a high school reporter, for the brief time I was in the job, turned me off. Not being able to meet deadlines because of unreachable sources really bothered me.”

      Her senior year, she became editor of the editorial section, which “involved a large amount of editing, as well as page design and layout, story generation and writer coaching.” By the time she headed to college, she said, “I knew I was going into journalism ... and I even knew that I would be an editor.”

      Countryman hadn’t decided “what college to attend, what to study or what occupation to prepare for” by his junior year. “Late that school year, my English teacher assigned us to write an opinion piece arguing for something. She never mentioned having them published — it was just an exercise.”

      “I wrote about a problem at our school — ridiculously overcrowded cafeterias. The school was 700 students over intended capacity, and every day students would still be standing in line, waiting for a hot meal, when their lunch period ended. My recommendation was to add a third lunch period; that’s how my junior high school handled its over-enrollment at midday.

      “The teacher and classmates thought this was a great idea and urged me to submit it to the school paper. The paper’s editors invited me to join the staff. I did. When the next academic year began several months later, the school had added a third lunch period, which solved a years-old problem. Many students remembered my op-ed piece and credited it for inspiring the change, although the administration never mentioned it. The power of the press!

      “We published only a few editions of the paper my senior year before the faculty adviser was taken sick. He died several months later. I’ll always remember him and his lessons. I also learned the importance of selling ads and how much I hated doing that.”

      Countryman went to George Washington University, where he became an editor on the student paper. Today, he’s a slot editor at the Baltimore Sun, his fifth daily paper.

      Where will tomorrow’s journalists come from? If the examples of Lee, Schlegel and Countryman are any indication, high school publications are a key source. As Schlegel, a 1995 high school graduate, says, “Identifying potential editors early and grooming their development are the best ways to fill the field with talented and educated editors.”

 Taking the next steps

      Facing board policies that mandate prior review in almost a third of the state’s school systems and the increasing threat of student newspaper extinction, North Carolina high school newspaper advisers and staffs may consider a few options to help them maximize opportunities for student expression. The North Carolina Scholastic Media Association distributed these tips on how to help protect student expression rights:

     Have the school board adopt a policy that states students decide the content of school publications.

     Develop a staff policy that helps students determine what is and is not acceptable to publish.

     Teach staff the canons of journalism and adhere to them.

     Print a disclaimer in the staff box that says opinions in school publications may not reflect the school’s views.

     Encourage guest writers and letters to the editor to show publications are forums for student expression.

      Many North Carolina high school newspapers have adopted and published their own policies that state the newspapers are forums for expression. The Student Press Law Center says such policies are useful to support claims that it is the practice of the publication to operate as a public forum, a status that provides a student newspaper greater First Amendment protection. (For examples of such policies, see Appendix B.)

      Another possibility is to persuade North Carolina legislators to support a state law that could offer students greater protection than the minimum offered by Hazelwood. Massachusetts, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, California and Arkansas have such laws. The language of the six laws varies, but none mandates prior review. All except Arkansas’ explicitly forbid prior restraint. All invest students and advisers with power and responsibility for their publications. And Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts and Iowa distinguish student speech from school policy and relieve school officials from any liability for students’ published expression. (It’s important to note, however, that the existence of the laws doesn't necessarily stop censorship — the previously mentioned yearbook-paintball case took place in California.)

      Proponents of a student-press law in North Carolina may find some aid in the declaration of rights in the state's constitution, which says, “Freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained, but every person shall be held responsible for their abuse.” The declaration of rights features no age restriction, although it does say that “every such right shall be exercised ... consistently with the Constitution of the United States.” (The Supreme Court, remember, declared the Hazelwood standard constitutional.)

      Still another option, especially for students in counties with prior review policies or histories, is to consider working with the teen pages or sections of professional papers, which have full First Amendment protection. In North Carolina, papers with teen pages or sections include The (Burlington) Times-News, The Charlotte Observer, The (Durham) Herald-Sun, The (Jacksonville) Daily News, The (Raleigh) News & Observer, The (Wilmington) Morning Star, The Wilson Daily News and The Winston-Salem Journal; in addition, the Virginian-Pilot in Virginia Beach, Va., serves the upper northeast counties of North Carolina. Students may be able to write articles for those papers that they cannot for their own school newspapers — or they may write for both publications — acquiring professional experience and gaining valuable professional allies who may be able to offer guidance and support the next time an instance of censorship arises at school.

      Finally, advisers fighting demands for prior review might consider sharing this finding with their administrators: Most North Carolina school newspapers that earn state and national honors do so without prior review.

      Of the 17 schools that earned the North Carolina Scholastic Media Institute’s first-place, Tar Heel Award or All North Carolina designations between 1995 and 1999, two — Gastonia Ashbrook and Forestview — came from a county, Gaston, with a policy mandating prior review (for a full list of the top NCSMI winners of the last five years, see Appendix C). The rest came from counties that do not have written publications policies or have policies that do not mandate prior review.

      On the national level, two newspapers that were finalists for the National Scholastic Press Association’s Pacemaker honor — West Henderson High’s Wingspan (1997 and 1998) and Jordan High’s Falcon’s Cry (1999) — come from counties (Henderson and Durham, respectively) in which policies do not mandate prior review. Sound to Sea, the Manteo High School newspaper that has won a Pacemaker each of the last two years, comes from a county (Dare) that does not have a written publications policy.

Life goes on

      Though disappointed by the Wake County school board’s decision, Eagle’s Eye Editor Matt Williams was not surprised, given the previous actions of the superintendent and assistant superintendent. Still, he said he hoped the media attention focused on this case might make principals think twice next time. (Principal Lloyd Gardner, contacted on two occasions for this report, was unavailable for comment.)

      Now studying journalism and political science at the University of Missouri, Williams has worked up a proposed revision of the Wake policy and has talked with the Student Press Law Center and the North Carolina Scholastic Media Association about it. Adjusting to college life put those efforts on the back burner, but he added, “Now that a completely different board has been elected, I’m tempted to contact them.”

      In the meantime, according to Williams, the Eagle’s Eye is not running any ads this school year. The school’s budget is now covering the entire cost of publication, and a new adviser is running it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A — County Policies

 

1. Durham County’s Policy 3035: Student Publications and Productions

 

3035.1 School-Sponsored Publications

 

The Board of Education strongly advocates the publication of student newspapers, yearbooks and literary magazines. School-sponsored publications such as newspapers, yearbooks and literary magazines are an important part of the school curriculum. School publications also provide an appropriate forum for students to learn and practice effective self-expression, reflecting the diversity in the school community. To provide an effective forum, collaboration among students, faculty, and administrators is essential.

 

a) Student reporters and editors shall be responsible for determining the news, opinion, and advertisements in student publications subject to the limitations of responsible journalism and advertisement, and as provided in Sections 3035.1 (b) and (c) of this policy.

b) Student publications shall not contain written matter which: (1) is vulgar, indecent or obscene; (2) contains libelous statements, personal attacks or abusive language such as language defaming a person’s character, race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, family status, or disability; (3) causes or clearly threatens to cause a material and substantial disruption of normal classroom activity, any normal school function, or other school activity; (4) encourages the commission of unlawful acts or the violation of lawful school regulations; or (5) advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.

c) Student staff of school-sponsored publications shall solicit and accept advertisement utilizing the principles and best practices of advertising. The staff shall not include in student publications advertisement that includes prohibited speech as specified in Section 3035.1(b).

d) Editorials and advertisements shall carry disclaimers that the opinion is not the position of the school or the school system, or that the advertisement does not represent an endorsement by the publication’s staff, the school, or the school system.

e) School-sponsored publications shall have faculty supervision. The faculty adviser shall assist students in practicing responsible journalism. Faculty advisers are encouraged to teach professional standards of English usage and journalism to the student staff. Also, faculty advisers should teach the principles and practices of responsible advertisement to the student staff. A faculty adviser or the principal may prohibit distribution of any material that fails to meet journalistic standards or that does not maintain the provisions of Sections 3035.1(b) and (c) of this policy.

 

3035.2 Non School-Sponsored Publications

 

Students wishing to distribute on campus any publication, leaflet, or other written material which is not school sponsored must submit the material to the principal for review. The principal may prohibit distribution if the material contains speech that is prohibited as specified in Section 3035.1(b). The principal must decide whether or not to allow the publication to be distributed within five school days of its submission for review. The material must be distributed at reasonable times and places as designated by the principal.

 

3035.3 deals with student productions...

 

3035.4 Appeals

 

a) Students may appeal a faculty adviser’s or principal’s decision to restrict distribution of publication or to restrict production. The appeal must be written and presented to the principal within five school days of the decision to restrict distribution. If the appeal is a response to a faculty adviser’s decision, a copy of the written appeal should be provided to the adviser. The principal shall render a written decision within five school days after receiving the appeal.

b) If a student is dissatisfied with the decision of the principal, the student may appeal the decision to the Superintendent in writing within seven school days after receiving the principal’s decision. The Superintendent or designee shall respond to the appeal within seven school days after receiving the appeal.

c) If the student is dissatisfied with the decision of the Superintendent, the student may appeal to the Board of Education by notifying the Superintendent in writing that he/she wishes to appeal the Superintendent’s decision. The notification must be made within seven school days after receiving the Superintendent’s decision. If the Board of Education does not issue a decision within ten school days after receipt of the appeal, the publication may be distributed. If the Board later decides that the publication is inappropriate, the distribution may be halted.

d) At every level of the appeal process, the student or representative shall have the right to appeal and present the student's case, supported by relevant witnesses and materials, as to why distribution of the publication is appropriate.

 

3035.5 Definitions

 

The following terms used in this policy shall be defined as follows:

a) Obscene — Any speech or work which the average person, applying contemporary community standards (as opposed to “national” standards) would find, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest, or which depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law, and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

b) Libelous statement — False and unprivileged statements about a specific individual which injure that person’s reputation in the community.

c) Substantial disruption — Any conduct by a student, in class or out, which for any reason including inappropriateness of time, place or type of behavior, significantly interferes with school functions, classroom instruction, or with the rights of other students. Examples of substantially disruptive conduct include, but are not limited to, demonstrations, destruction of property, injury to person, shouting or boisterous conduct, related activities, and anything that significantly distracts other students from instruction.

 

 

Legal Reference:

Adopted: April 21, 1993

Revised Effective: July 1, 1999

 

2. Policy used in Moore, Perquimans and Wilson counties and in Kannapolis and Newton-Conover city school systems (different school systems have different numbers for this policy — this numbering is used in Newton-Conover):

 

School Publications

 

A basic purpose of education is to prepare students for reasonable self-expression. The right to free expression is constitutionally guaranteed and shall be accorded all students so long as such expression does not interfere with the rights of others or unduly interrupt the educational process.

 

6610.1 Publications sponsored or in any way funded by the school or under school control shall be known as school publications and shall be assigned faculty advisers. Such publications are considered part of the school program and remain under school control regarding their content and appropriateness within the learning process.

 

6610.2 Independent student or off-campus publications shall not be published or circulated on school premises except upon the approval of the principal.

 

Legal Reference: U.S. Constitution, Amendment I

Adopted: January 14, 1997

 

3. Policy used in Cleveland, Currituck, Edgecombe, Hertford, Nash, Northampton, Person, Stanly and Wake counties and Roanoke Rapids city school systems (Note: section 3 on “Review Before Distribution” is NOT a part of the policy in Currituck and Wake counties). Different school systems have different numbers for this policy — this policy is from Cleveland County:

 

Policy No. 4125: Student Publications and Productions

 

School-sponsored publications such as newspapers, yearbooks and literary magazines and school productions are an important part of the school curriculum. School publications and productions also provide an appropriate forum for students to learn and practice reasonable self-expression.

 

1. Publications in General

 

Students may distribute free publications and literature at reasonable times and places as designated by the principal.  The principal shall prohibit the distribution of any written matter which:

 

a. is vulgar, indecent or obscene;

 

b. contains libelous statements or abusive language such as language defaming a person’s character, race, religion, ethnic origin or disability;

 

c. causes or clearly threatens to cause a material and substantial disruption of normal classroom activity, any normal school function, or other school activity;

 

d. encourages the commission of unlawful acts or the violation of lawful school regulations;

 

or

 

e.  advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.

 

2. School-Sponsored Publications

 

Student newspapers and other school-sponsored publications shall have faculty supervision.  Responsible journalism should be free from libel, obscenities or personal attacks.  Student reporters and editors are responsible for the content of student publications.  The faculty sponsor of such publications or school principal may prohibit the distribution of any materials that fail to meet journalistic standards or are inappropriate for the school audience as outlined in section 1.  The principal may also prohibit distribution of any school-sponsored student publication which:

 

a. exposes its particular audience to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity; or

 

b. associates the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.

 

3. Review before Distribution

 

Students wishing to distribute any publication on campus must first submit the publication to the principal for review.  The principal may prohibit distribution of a  publication if material in the publication falls into one of the seven categories of inappropriate speech listed in sections 1 and 2.  The principal must decide whether or not to allow the publication to be distributed within five (5) school days of its submission for review.

 

If the principal fails to render a decision within the five-day period, the student may appeal directly to the Superintendent.  A request for this direct appeal must be made within two (2) school days after the five (5) days allowed for the principal’s decision.

 

4.  Appeals

 

Students may appeal a principal’s decision to restrict distribution.  The appeal must be written and presented to the principal.  The principal shall render a written decision within five (5) school days after receiving the appeal.

 

If a student is dissatisfied with the decision of the principal, the student may appeal the decision in writing to the Superintendent and then to the Board of Education in accordance with the student grievance policy.

 

If the Board does not issue a decision within ten (10) school days after receipt of the appeal, the publication may be distributed.  If the Board later decides that the publication is inappropriate, the distribution may be halted.

 

At every level of the appeal process, the student or representative shall have the right to appeal and present the student’s case, supported by relevant witnesses and materials, as to why distribution of the publication is appropriate.

 

5.  Definitions

 

The following terms used in this statement of policy shall be defined as follows:

 

a. “Obscene” — Any speech or work which the average person, applying contemporary community standards (as opposed to “national” standards) would find, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest, or which depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law, and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

 

b. “Libelous statement” — False and unprivileged statements about a specific individual which injure that person’s reputation in the community.

 

c. “Substantial disruption” — Any conduct by a student, in class or out, which for any reason including inappropriateness of time, place or type of behavior, significantly interferes with school functions, classroom instruction, or with the rights of other students.  Examples of substantially disruptive conduct include, but are not limited to, significant distractions from instruction, demonstrations, destruction of property, injury to persons, shouting or boisterous conduct, and related activities.

 

6. deals with student productions...

 

Legal Reference:  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Adopted:  June 16, 1997

 

4. Haywood County’s Policy C-5: Student Publications

Adopted:  October 12, 1992

 

I.  General Policy Statement

 

Student publications are part of the educational curriculum.  While it is most appropriate for students to tackle serious subjects, the Board will not support student expression that is inconsistent with its basic education mission or is injurious to students or staff.

 

II.  Regulations

 

A. Student publications belong to the school, not just to the students who compile them.

 

B. Student publications reflect on the school, and the school is responsible, financially and otherwise, for what the publication prints.

 

C. The principal shall have the right to exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school sponsored expressive activities (U.S. Supreme Court, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 108 S. Ct. 562, 1988).

 

D.  The distribution of all information and literature is governed by School Board Policy
A-7, Distribution of Literature and/or Information in the School System.

 

Appendix B — Individual Newspaper Policies

 

1. The Rambler, Greene Central High School, Snow Hill, Greene County

 

Editorial Policy: Following journalistic principles, The Rambler will strive to inform, persuade and entertain its readers in areas deemed relevant. All students and faculty are encouraged to send letters to the editor (100-150 words or less).

 

2. The Davie Yell, Davie High School, Mocksville, Davie County

 

The Davie Yell is produced by the journalism class five times a year and is distributed to the student body free of charge.

 

Subscriptions are available for anyone not attending Davie High at a rate of $3 per year. Single copies are 50 cents.

 

Letters to the editor are encouraged for expressing views on a subject, to criticize or to compliment this publication. Letters will be published only if signed. The Davie Yell reserves the right to edit letters to the editor for grammatical errors. ...

 

The Davie Yell is dedicated to printing news that affects the students of Davie High School. It operates as a forum for expression of opinion by students, faculty, staff and community.

 

3. North Johnston High School, Johnston County

 

The journalism staff hopes to keep the student body and parents informed about matters which affect North Johnston High School, while striving to make our publication a device for the education and entertainment of its readers. Also, we hope to satisfy our advertisers by making their communities aware of the services made available by the patrons of this school. Finally, we hope to benefit personally from our work by learning to express ourselves creatively and by developing proper journalistic techniques.

 

4. Pine Whispers, R.J. Reynolds High School, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County

 

Pine Whispers, the student newspaper of R.J. Reynolds since 1924, serves as a public forum to promote the exchange of ideas by readers and contributors. It informs, educates, influences, enlightens, entertains and serves its community.

 

R.J. Reynolds High School students — all groups, grades and cultures — are the primary audience of this newspaper. The audience also includes teachers, parents, staff, administrators and other community members.

 

Content of this newspaper should reflect the issues that relate to and reveal the lives, concerns and interests of students. Pine Whispers can both mirror the community in which it is published and bring together faculty, parents, administrators and community members so that they may understand student concerns.

 

Coverage should be fair, accurate and balanced. Pine Whispers will seek objectivity in news, feature and sports reporting and writing and reflect writers’ opinions for editorial writing on the opinion pages. The unsigned staff editorial is written by the editorial board, which includes the editor in chief, section editors, business and advertising managers. Signed editorials do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the adviser, the faculty, staff or administrators of this school and community. Letters to the editor are welcomed from all readers and should be signed. Pine Whispers reserves the right to edit letters for clarity and space and will not print