Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier is a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case from 1988 that addressed the issue of student free speech within the context of a public school newspaper. The case arose when a principal at East Hazelwood High School in Missouri censored articles in the school newspaper, the Spectrum, that discussed sensitive topics like teenage pregnancy and divorce. The initial federal district court upheld the principal's actions, but a court of appeals reversed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court's involvement. In a 5-3 ruling, the Court determined that school officials could exercise editorial control over student publications, provided their decisions were related to legitimate educational concerns.
This ruling marked a significant shift in First Amendment jurisprudence regarding student expression, contrasting with the earlier Tinker v. Des Moines decision, which had offered broader protections for student speech. Critics of the Hazelwood ruling argue that it fosters an environment of censorship in schools, as evidenced by subsequent surveys indicating widespread instances of editorial control and student dissatisfaction among high school journalists. Consequently, the case has become a critical reference point in discussions about the balance between educational authority and student rights in the realm of free speech.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Decided: January 13, 1988
Significance: The Hazelwood decision, giving school administrators the power of prior restraint censorship, reversed a long-time trend of First Amendment support for freedom of expression on high school campuses
This case involved the direct censorship of a school newspaper, the Spectrum, at East Hazelwood High School near St. Louis, Missouri, in 1983. The school’s principal removed two pages he considered inappropriate from the newspaper prior to its distribution. The pages contained articles about teenage pregnancy and the impact of divorce on children. None of the students quoted in the two articles was identified.
The principal’s censorship of the newspaper was upheld by a federal district court but overturned by a court of appeals. The appellate court decision was then reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in January, 1988, when it ruled that the censorship was permissible under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s ruling stunned First Amendment supporters, for it reversed a long-time trend of First Amendment support for freedom of expression issues on high school campuses. Further, it joined the Pentagon Papers case and The Progressive’s “H-bomb” case as a classic example of a particularly onerous form of censorship by prior restraint.
In writing for the majority of the Court in the 5-3 decision, Justice Byron White said: “We hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial 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.” The ruling opened the door for widespread censorship by giving administrators the power to censor student publications and other school-sponsored activities, such as drama productions, in advance. The decision also contradicted the earlier landmark ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), which had permitted campus censorship only if it served to protect the rights of other students or to quell a threatened campus disruption—neither of which was the case with Hazelwood.
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., wrote the dissenting opinion, in which he and two other justices condemned the message by the court’s majority: “Instead of teaching children to respect the diversity of ideas that is fundamental to the American system . . . the Court today teaches youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.”
If the intent of the 1988 Hazelwood ruling was to intimidate student journalists, it appears to have succeeded. An analysis of high school journalism by the Freedom Forum in 1994 reported that 70 percent of 270 high school newspaper advisers admitted that school principals had rejected newspaper articles or required changes. In 1995 the Student Press Law Center reported that many student journalists “harbor feelings of anger or confusion” when they’re not permitted to write about issues they feel are important. In many cases, as the censorship becomes routine, such feelings are replaced by indifference.