Preparing Scholastic Press Advisers for Roles after Hazelwood Decision

Abstract

Supreme Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) allowed school officials to set journalistic standards higher than those demanded by some newspaper publishers ... in the 'real' world (at 272) and to exercise prior restraint on publications that are not open forums by policy or practice if the action reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns (at 273). Eveslage (1995) noted that the decision essentially challenged publications advisers to teach rights and responsibilities, but implied the direction to take when it identified professionalism as the (p. 3). question of what publication advisers are teaching about student rights and professionalism of the scholastic press of importance to college educators, who are responsible for preparing students to become knowledgeable school journalism teachers and advisers. Public forum Justice Byron White used a public forum analysis from Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (1985) and Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983) as the basis of his majority opinion in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. Traditional forums are those that have long been open to all expression. Limited forums are created by government designation of a place or channel of communication for use by the at large for assembly and speech, for use by certain speakers, or for the discussion of certain subjects, and the government must open a non-traditional forum for discourse (Cornelius at 802). At both traditional and limited forums, government restrictions must be narrowly drawn and serve a compelling state interest. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are allowed if they are content-neutral and narrowly drawn and leave open alternative channels of communication (Perry at 45-46). A non-public forum one that is not by tradition or designation a forum for communication, and any government regulation in a non-public forum must be only reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral (Cornelius at 806). Hazelwood majority determined that schools are not traditional forums and that the Hazelwood East Spectrum was not a limited forum in practice. It stated: The government does not create a forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a non-traditional forum for discourse (Hazelwood at 267, quoting Cornelius, 1985, at 802). However, when the forum rationale had previously been used by courts in regard to a student publication (see Zucker v. Panitz, 1969, and Gambino v. Fairfax County School Board, 1977), the newspapers were found to be limited forums for student expression. Justice William Brennan, author of the minority position in Hazelwood, stated that the school's control over the content of school-sponsored publications should be limited. He concluded that an earlier Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), should be the standard for scholastic press freedom cases. Prior to Hazelwood, the Tinkerstandard was the `compelling reason' by which their (school officials') censoring actions would be measured (SPLC, 1994, p. 36). Tinker stated that restrictions can be put on student speech only if the speech materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others (Tinker at 513). Until Hazelwood, courts had not ruled on whether prior restraint of scholastic publications for other types of content, such as libel and obscenity, was permissible (SPLC, 1985, p. 23). Though Brennan stated that the Court was deviating from precedent, he agreed with the Hazelwood majority that an educator may constitutionally censor material that ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced or material that does not meet high standards for . …