Pennsylvania School Press Association

I was on an airplane, reading and cursing to myself. At least I thought I was until I saw other passengers staring at me. But I couldn’t help it. That January day in 1988 I was reading for the first time what we know as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that had just told the world that high school journalists aren’t trustworthy enough to make responsible decisions.

In heavy-handed, condescending language, a Court majority offered what insecure administrators would soon believe was a license to censor student expression. While it heartened some administrators, Hazelwood depressed many journalism students and advisers. (See this guide for a detailed analysis of the Hazelwood ruling.)

Some members of the student press after Hazelwood were intimidated into silence. But the case also challenged publication staffs. Many wanted their administrators to know their student journalists deserved trust and respect, that there was no need for threats, obstacles or fear because they were knowledgeable, caring and conscientious students.

This assessment is as true now as when I first made it 20 years ago. My lead on a March 1988 cover story in PSPA’s Keystoner newsletter said this about Hazelwood: “The decision, while not a death blow to student rights, should put every student and teacher on guard.” Students and advisers would have to work harder for respect and press freedom, I wrote, but reminded them that the Court was not condoning, or encouraging, administrative censorship.

During the past two decades, I have written or publicly spoken about the Hazelwood ruling hundreds of times. My message has been consistent: Bad things happen to the student press. Good things, too. Anticipate and avoid the bad. Capitalize on the opportunities.

What obstacles do student journalists still face?

• Continuing Censorship. The Student Press Law Center reported that the first five years after Hazelwood, the annual number of calls for assistance more than tripled. The SPLC said last fall that there has been “no sign of decline” in censorship. This threat will continue to plague student journalists.
• Defensive Overreaction. Since the April 1999 Columbine shootings and other incidents of violence in school, administrators have felt the need to suppress speech that may disrupt the school or do harm to its students and faculty. Parents defer to administrators who cite “safety and security” rationale. This rhetoric also silences student journalists.
• Expanding Boundaries. School officials at the time of Hazelwood often believed that censoring “negative” stories in student publications insulated the administration from outside scrutiny and criticism. If anything, cyberspace has escalated that fear. Administrators now believe the Internet has both broadened the definition of “student publications” and expanded school boundaries beyond the classroom buildings.
• Misunderstood Hazelwood. Just as there are new journalism teachers and advisers every year, there also are school officials who know only the administrative-power tone of Hazelwood and incorrectly believe that it overrules the legally valid student-rights message of the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines case. Too many public-school administrators still wrongly believe that Hazelwood gives them the power and autonomy that the publisher of a private newspaper has over the staff of that publication.

---

But there also are signs that despite the Hazelwood language that initially demoralized students and delighted school officials, high school journalists today are equipped to defend thoughtful, useful and substantive student media content.

Here are some hopeful indicators that have marginalized Hazelwood’s harmful impact.

• Legislative support. When Hazelwood was decided in 1988, California had the only state law protecting students from administrative censorship. In 2007, Oregon became the seventh state to give high school students more free-speech protection than Hazelwood provides. Students in two more states – Pennsylvania and Washington – have free-speech protection through administrative codes limiting school control.
• Court support. Federal courts since 1988 have kept Hazelwood in check. The Hazelwood Court didn’t intend to push student expression and journalism education off school grounds when it gave broader authority to administrators regulating school-sponsored publications produced or distributed within the school. School officials are on shaky legal ground when they force suppressed speech off-campus and then, as they have with increasing frequency, they punish students who post online “negative” statements from their home computers and students who criticize school policies or practices in an “underground” newspaper published outside of school. Lower courts have said that Hazelwood doesn’t give public school officials this authority.
• Responsible journalism. Professional and student journalists alike realize that responsible, ethical journalism resonates with their audiences and earns them respect and public support. Today there are important legal and ethical reasons to practice good journalism. In an important Michigan case (Dean v. Utica), a federal judge said that because student journalists had done such a thorough, responsible job of investigative reporting, school officials had no right censoring a student newspaper story about a lawsuit neighborhood residents filed against the district. Solid journalism undercut the administration’s censorship power.
• Accessible Assistance. Teachers and students aren’t as isolated as they were 20 years ago. More and better resources exist to protect student expression. Here are a few that have online websites: The Student Press Law Center, J-Ideas at Ball State University, the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, the Journalism Education Association, the Columbia and National Scholastic Press Associations, plus professional groups such as the Freedom Forum, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists. All have tools and tips for protecting student media.
• Blissful Idealism. Students and advisers shouldn’t focus-and aren’t-on what they don’t know and can’t do. Most advisers weren’t teaching and students weren’t alive when Hazelwood gave administrators more control of student expression. Student journalists were being intimidated before Hazelwood, just as they were before Tinker 40 years ago. Through it all, good high school journalism has persevered as student journalists have matured.

Some journalism programs are in trouble today, but likely not because of a 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling. Fortunately, student journalism is in the hands of caring teachers and knowledgeable, conscientious students, not judges or school administrators. Recent research supports this conclusion.

Jack Dvorak, a journalism professor at Indiana University, is the co-author of a 1994 book called Journalism Kids Do Better. His extensive survey then of almost 20,000 high school students-including some 4,800 student journalists-revealed that the Journalism Kids did better in 10 of 12 major academic areas, performed better when they moved to college writing courses, and were more involved in school and community activities.

Dr. Dvorak recently completed a comparable study, this time surveying more than 31,000 students. The results were the same. In “High School Journalism Matters,” Dvorak reports that high school journalists have higher grade-point averages, do better on the ACT college entrance exam and reveal better writing and grammar skills in college than do students who without high school journalism work.

This heartening research and a closer look at Hazelwood and its aftermath should offer hope and confidence to those faced with the challenges of scholastic journalism.

---