On May 10, 1983, the Principal of the Hazelwood East School, Mr. Reynolds, obtained an example of the local newspaper “Spectrum” for proofreading of the May, 13 issues. On the whole, the plot of the newspaper’s issue was rather satisfactory as far as the newspaper highlighted the most significant issues in the lives of the school’s students. However, there were two articles that attracted the Principal’s attention. One of the articles described the pregnancy experiences of three of the school’s students, while the second one touched upon the impact of divorces in the families of the school students and the impact of these divorce practices upon their academic performance. So, Principal Reynolds demanded to take the two articles away from the issue and replace them with more neutral ones.
The newspaper under consideration was issued as a part of the school’s class in journalism, and Robert Stergos was the professor in charge of this course. He was rather upset by such policies of the Principal, and so were his students. A number of them filed a lawsuit against the Principal and other school officials of the Hazelwood East School claiming that their rights according to the First Amendment were violated. To prove this, the students stated that it was their choice to include or not certain materials in the newspaper issue. However, stating that class newspapers are parts of the school curricula, the Federal District Court decided that no First Amendment violations took place. At the same time, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision stating that apart from the mentioned reasons, the school newspaper is a means of public communication and the Principal had no right to censor the articles chosen for publication.
- Was Principal Reynolds entitled to censor the plot of the school article?
- Did the Court of Appeals have the right to reverse Federal Court decisions?
Annotated Bibliography
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1985).
Distinguished that school officials are entitled to control and censor the educational activities of their students without violating the First Amendment. Moreover, the Federal District Court grounded this decision by the fact that newspapers, or any other kinds of students’ activities within their curriculum, are sponsored by the educational establishment which has the right to control the legitimacy and correctness of the materials published. This right is given to schools and other educational institutions exclusively in the pedagogical purposes.
Frasca v. Andrews, 463 F. Supp. 1043, 1052 (EDNY 1979).
The District Court decided that the school officials have exclusive right to control the performance of all the school-sponsored organizations and classes, including the newspaper publishing as a part of the journalism class. The paramount importance is attributed here to the pedagogical purposes for the sake of which the very journalism classes are established. Thus, Principals and other educational officials exercise their rights to censor as a means to control the quality and adequacy of the published material.
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986).
The District Court decided that there was no direct relation of the students’ rights according to the First Amendment and the rights of adults according to the same point of the Constitution. Expressing no doubt in the supremacy of law, the Court concluded that the interpretation of the First Amendment for school students should differ from the one for adults based on the academic purposes of the activities of the former.