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