How far should schools go in allowing student expression? That was the key question in the 1988 Supreme Court case, “Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.”
It began as a principal’s decision to remove two articles from a student newspaper, but it later created a broader argument over student journalism, free expression, and how much authority schools should have over students. The decision remains controversial, especially among student journalists who find the case ruling has a vague interpretation and allows schools to silence student media.
The case originated in 1983 at Hazelwood East High School in Missouri, where students in their school newspaper, “The Spectrum,” published two articles. The articles were intended to be about informative yet sensitive topics. One focused on pregnant students and the other talking about the impacts of divorce on families.
Although the students made the subjects of their articles anonymous, Principal Robert Reynolds deemed the articles inappropriate and ordered them to be removed. He claimed that there were concerns of privacy and suitability for younger readers causing the student journalists to feel as if their First Amendment rights were violated.
Student journalist, Cathy Kuhlmeier, and her peers sued the school district, arguing that “The Spectrum” was a public medium for student expression and the censorship violated the First Amendment. However, the school district countered that the student paper was part of the curriculum, making it subject to control over the administration.
After losing in district court but winning on appeal, the case went to the Supreme Court. They ruled 5-3 in favor of Hazelwood, allowing schools to censor speech in school-sponsored activities if it serves authorized teaching concerns. Moreover, critics argue the vague ruling allows schools to censor controversial and sensitive topics, silencing voices that challenge the status quo.
The ruling furthermore created a contrast to the earlier case, “Tinker v. Des Moines” in 1969, where the court supported student’s rights to express opinions as long as they do not disrupt the learning environment. Hazelwood has frustrated journalists who see censorship as a way to weaken journalism’s core value: to ask tough questions and answer the pressing ones.
Ultimately, the Hazelwood decision leaves a concerning legacy. While the Supreme Court wanted to balance free speech and educational oversight, the vague ruling has often been used to silence student’s critical thinking and opinions. For journalists, this is a reminder of how easily free expression can be quickly silenced by school authorities.
Though the outcome violates basic rights and principle ethics, the “Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier” case is that of understandable perspectives coming from each side.
This dispute ultimately limited the rights of students in a school system. The outcome of the case resulted in schools being able to restrict and censor students’ First Amendment if it does not align with school policies.
This disagreement arose from journalism students at Hazelwood East High School publishing articles in the school’s newspaper regarding sensitive topics. The principal decided to remove those pieces because of that inappropriate content.
As a result, students in the class, led by Cathy Kuhlmeier, sued because of the violation of the First Amendment, the freedom of speech.
Each perspective had a reasonable qualification to back up the opinion.
The principal of Hazelwood restricted the publications on the media to protect the school as a whole. Therefore, only disclosing ideologies that are oriented within the school’s comfortability, vision, and mission.
This alters the reputation of the school and the students from which it was written.
The students were only trying to express themselves and their viewpoints. They thought that writing articles on what the school system deemed as ‘inappropriate’ topics, such as teen pregnancy and divorce, was not only completely acceptable but also encouraged.
Students are motivated to express themselves and share their opinions daily. Why would that be taken away when it was only practiced?
The freedom of speech is a basic, natural, and inalienable right that students are now denied since the decision of the Hazelwood dispute. Correspondingly, the schools are protected from the risk of ruining their reputation.
Students should not have to silence their thoughts when they walk into a school building. The Constitution is written to everyone, not just those that are done with their education.
As a result of Hazelwood, schools are protected, while students’ rights are left restricted.
The Hazelwood case originated in 1983 when a student journalist from Hazelwood East High School in Missouri wrote about teen pregnancy and divorce. Prior to publication of the article, Hazelwood principal Robert Reynolds was concerned about the privacy of the student in question. Three student journalists—Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett—sued, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights.
This case eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if the school’s administration was legitimate or a complete violation of free speech. The purpose of “Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier” was to establish the boundaries set on student press. The court ruled that schools have the right to regulate content based on are not considered public debate.
Therefore, schools have the authority to censor content to ensure it aligns with educational objectives, aligns with student privacy concerns, and avoids controversial material that might be considered inappropriate. After passing through lower court rulings and making it to the U.S Supreme Court, Hazelwood was decided in a 5-3 decision. The ruling influenced how schools interpreted students’ First Amendment rights, and limited free speech in education settings.
This decision made students feel unheard, and in many cases less of an individual due to the restraints on publicity. Many schools tightened their control over student newspapers, and some districts rewrote their policies to reflect the ruling to make sure the administration had the proper authority.
In effort to overturn the Hazelwood decision, some states are passing New Voices laws to protect student journalism from administrative censorship, ultimately overriding Hazelwood’s restrictions at the state level.
Other states continued to follow the ruling, keeping strict school oversight on student publications. The case did not create a new law through Congress, but rather established a precedent that schools and lower courts now follow.
The Hazelwood decision sparked political backlash, particularly from free speech advocates, journalists, and student rights groups. Critics argued it weakened First Amendment protections and allowed school officials too much control over controversial topics, effectively silencing student voices to protect the school’s image.
Groups like the Student Press Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union condemned the ruling, calling it censorship that discouraged students from reporting on important social issues. Critics feared that schools could use Hazelwood as a step backward from other cases like “Tinker v. Des Moines” in 1969, which had previously affirmed students’ free speech rights in school.
As of today, 18 states have passed some form of New Voices legislation in opposition of Hazelwood. However, many states still follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, leaving student journalists with fewer protections.
From the moment Hazelwood was first instated, it had wild effects on student journalists. The law allows school principals to dictate student media, resulting in subjectivity when it comes to student rights.
The results of “Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier” have impacted society by limiting student press rights, allowing for their First Amendment freedoms to be hindered when their topic goes against what the school deems as their mission.
Hazelwood overturned the previous ruling in “Tinker v. Des Moines” in 1969. As a result of students wearing black armbands in support of peace during the Vietnam War, they were sent home from school. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, stating even in school the First Amendment applies.
The Tinker case ruled in favor of students expressing their opinions. It contradicted the Constitution protecting free speech and Hazelwood ruling against it when associated with the school, there is a lot of grey area when it comes to the rights students have to express themselves.
In 1988, shortly after the Hazelwood case ruling, a former journalism advisor at Homestead High School recalled the principal attempting to revoke a story about a student who was HIV positive. The story did end up being published due to a code in California which protects student rights.
Not only has Hazelwood stopped stories from being posted and topics from being explored, but it has caused unnecessary stress for students. Students have to deal with coming to school and being dubbed by principals and staff as a certain type of kid due to wanting to post a story about a topic they deem as important on a platform which is accessible to them.
School media is supposed to bring relatable topics to the forefront to create a voice for students which often goes unheard. Hazelwood’s vague rhetoric leaves much of what is deemed as important up for interpretation.
In 2003, the ACLU of Michigan challenged Utica County Schools after they censored a student’s article about a resident who claimed fumes from the school district’s bus garage caused him to be ill.
The student was forced to attend school knowing her article was a result of an ongoing court case against her school district, causing unnecessary stress and pressure.
A judge ended up ruling in her favor, claiming administrators do not have the control unless under “very limited circumstances.” The case ended up costing the school district a lot of money, just for them to lose.
Both the student and the school district were negatively affected by the court case which did little to clear the confusion surrounding the Hazelwood ruling. The case has had a negative effect on current students. School is about the students, not the faculty or the superintendent.
Whether it is wasted money by the school district, wasted time of the teachers who are trying to teach the future generations, or added stress to students who are trying to achieve success, the Hazelwood case ruling has had an overall negative effect on society as a whole.
“Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier” significantly shifted how the First Amendment is applied within school settings, with many wondering about the possibilities of what will come in the future.
With the current events happening in America, like the threat of the downfall of the Department of Education, mass deportations, and the censorship of youth via social media, the fight for free speech in student journalism is more prominent than ever.
The University of Kansas documented that censorship is a pervasive problem in high school newsrooms and that it disproportionately affects young women.
One-third of school students said they had been categorically banned from talking about certain topics in student media.
Help is on the way as state legislatures are recognizing the educational value of student journalism and stepping up to protect their rights. The case for protecting the freedom of the press in schools is also about allowing citizens to be willing to ask questions to government authorities when needed.
New Voices is a student-powered, nonpartisan movement of state-based activists dedicated to seeking and protecting student press freedom through state laws. Founded in 1974 and based in Washington, D.C., the Student Press Law Center has been fighting for free press freedom in schools nationwide. Currently, 18 states have restored and protected the student press.
New Voices bills have been introduced in Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri, and New York. There are currently active New Voices campaigns in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas.
New Voices have had their fair share of fallings, however. Numerous bills have fallen short on the Senate floor even though people testified in support. Missouri is one of those examples, as the bill was denied for the ninth consecutive year.
In response to this, New Voices is aiming to work on better-educating lawmakers on the importance and nonpartisan nature of the organization.
New Voices is continuing to fight for the freedom of the press for the classrooms and encourages more people to get involved in their state. To get involved, contact the New Voices Advocacy and Organizing Team at [email protected].