The Court is certainly correct that the First Amendment permits educators "to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach. 1450, 1461 (ED Mo.1985). When the school principal removed an article concerning divorce and another concerning teen pregnancy, the student journalists sued, claiming that their First Amendment rights had been violated. 478 U.S. at 478 U. S. 685-686. . .

We also conclude that Principal Reynolds acted reasonably in requiring the deletion from the May 13 issue of Spectrum of the pregnancy article, the divorce article, and the remaining articles that were to appear on the same pages of the newspaper. Only speech that 'materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline' can be found unacceptable and therefore prohibited.".

The decision overrode the precedent set in the Tinker case, which had permitted censorship of student speech only if it violated the rights of other students or threatened to cause a campus disruption. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 403 U. S. 682 (1986), and must be "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment."

We deal first with the question whether Spectrum may appropriately be characterized as a forum for public expression. The mere fact of school sponsorship does not, as the Court suggests, license such thought control in the high school, whether through school suppression of disfavored viewpoints or through official assessment of topic sensitivity.

Accordingly, school officials were entitled to regulate the contents of Spectrum in any reasonable manner. Board Policy 348.51 provided that, "[s]chool sponsored publications are developed within the adopted curriculum and its educational implications in regular classroom activities.". or impinge upon the rights of other students," Tinker, 393 U.S. at 393 U. S. 509, but also from speech that is, for example, ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences. [16], A 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision, Hosty v. Carter (412 U.S. 731), however, held that Hazelwood did apply to subsidized student media at the college level. 393 U.S. at 393 U. S. 513. The dissent correctly acknowledges "[t]he State's prerogative to dissolve the student newspaper entirely." Reynolds was concerned that, although the pregnancy story used false names "to keep the identity of these girls a secret," the pregnant students still might be identifiable from the text. and that the newspaper would not appear before the end of the school year if printing were delayed to any significant extent. Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmeier, 1988 by cynthia rogel on Prezi Next The Supreme Court ruled (5-3) siding with the Hazelwood School District concluding that school sponsored activities are not normally protected from administrative censorship. To require such regulations in the context of a curricular activity could unduly constrain the ability of educators to educate. [9], In conjunction with the 25th anniversary of the Court's decision in 2013, the Student Press Law Center launched a nationwide censorship awareness campaign, "Cure Hazelwood," that ignited "New Voices" reform movements across the country, seeking to enact state legislation affording students enhanced press freedoms. [22] The court established that the student publication could be regulated by school officials, and that they "reserved the forum for its intended purpose, as a supervised learning experience for journalism students".

These factual findings are amply supported by the record, and were not rejected as clearly erroneous by the Court of Appeals. For that school year, the board supplied $4,668 in printing costs, and Howard Emerson, the adviser to the journalism class, submitted page proofs of the May 13 issue of the newspaper to principal Robert Eugene Reynolds for approval, a practice that was customary at the time. Id. [Footnote 2/2] The former would constitute unabashed and unconstitutional viewpoint. [2][3] The Spectrum was published roughly every three weeks during the 1982–1983 school year. One of the stories described three Hazelwood East students' experiences with pregnancy; the other discussed the impact of divorce on students at the school. (After all, this Court applied the same standard whether the students in Tinker wore their armbands to the "classroom" or the "cafeteria." This Court applied the Tinker test just a Term ago in Fraser, supra, upholding an official decision to discipline a student for delivering a lewd speech in support of a student government candidate. A lower court sided with the school, but its decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which sided with the students.

. See, e.g., Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. In addition, Reynolds was concerned that a student identified by name in the divorce story had complained that her father "wasn't spending enough time with my mom, my sister and I" prior to the divorce, "was always out of town on business or out late playing cards with the guys," and "always argued about everything" with her mother. They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises -- whether "in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours," 393 U.S. at 393 U. S. 512-513 -- unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students."

The officials did not evince any intent to open the paper's pages to indiscriminate use by its student reporters and editors, or by the student body generally.

object. The newspaper, which appeared every three weeks, was funded in part by the school district's Board of Education, since its sales to school and community members did not support it financially. The dissent perceives no difference between the First Amendment analysis applied in Tinker and that applied in Fraser.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Case Background: Students in Hazelwood East High School created a journalism newspaper sponsored and funded by the school. and 'the legal, moral, and ethical restrictions imposed upon journalists. Ante at 484 U. S. 272 (citation omitted). JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee. Cf. When the young men and women of Hazelwood East High School registered for Journalism II, they expected a civics lesson. Specifically, the majority decrees that we must afford educators authority to shield high school students from exposure to "potentially sensitive topics" (like "the particulars of teenage sexual activity") or unacceptable social viewpoints (like the advocacy of "irresponsible se[x] or conduct otherwise inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order'") through school-sponsored student activities. Whenever an instance of censorship involved action by a government employee, such as a school principal or a college dean, the courts held that First Amendment safeguards applied. Courts are divided on whether the decision applies to universities, so the Court may need to return to this issue in that context. 795 F.2d 1368 (1986).

Official censorship of student speech on the ground that it addresses "potentially sensitive topics" is, for related reasons, equally impermissible. Reynolds believed that there was no time to make the necessary changes in the stories before the scheduled press run. In part because of those dangers, this Court has consistently condemned any scheme allowing a state official boundless discretion in licensing speech from a particular forum. The deletion of the article on divorce was seen by the court as a reasonable response to the invasion of privacy concerns raised by the named student's remarks.

Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. ." No. at 1466 (quoting Frasca v. Andrews, 463 F. Supp. Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmeier, January 13th, 1988 The Case As a result all pages were eliminated. [1], The case concerned The Spectrum, a student newspaper published as part of a Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri. No. [12] This means schools may exercise prior restraint regarding the "style and content" of a student newspaper so long as their action is "not unreasonable", whereas there previously had to be compelling evidence to warrant censorship.

[26] Some individual states have also responded with laws designating student newspapers as public forums and offering them greater First Amendment protection. We granted certiorari, 479 U.S. 1053 (1987), and we now reverse. .

Accordingly, we conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for determining when a school may punish student expression need not also be the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination, of student expression. Likewise, the student newspaper that, like Spectrum, conveys a moral position at odds with the school's official stance might subvert the administration's legitimate inculcation of its own perception of community values. Although it is true that students and teachers in public schools do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,”  these rights  “are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” and must be applied in light of the “special characteristics of the school environment.”. See Papish v. University of Missouri Board of Curators, 410 U. S. 667, 410 U. S. 671, n. 6 (1973) (per curiam); Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169, 408 U. S. 180, 408 U. S. 189, and n. 18, 408 U. S. 191 (1972). The newspaper was published every three weeks or so during the 1982-1983 school year. Instead, it erects a taxonomy of school censorship, concluding that Tinker applies to one category, and not another.

We reject respondents' suggestion that school officials be permitted to exercise prepublication control over school-sponsored publications only pursuant to specific written regulations. Dissociative means short of censorship are available to the school. Ante at 484 U. S. 275. .

of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Board of Ed.