Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
484 U.S. 260 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Public school officials may exercise editorial control over the content of school-sponsored student speech in expressive activities, such as a school newspaper produced as part of a curriculum, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
Facts:
- The newspaper 'Spectrum' was written and edited by the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School as a part of the school's curriculum.
- The Hazelwood School District's Board of Education provided the primary funding for the newspaper.
- The school's established practice was for the principal, Robert Reynolds, to review the page proofs of each issue prior to publication.
- For the May 13, 1983 issue, students wrote articles about three anonymous students' experiences with pregnancy and another article about the impact of divorce on students.
- Principal Reynolds objected to the pregnancy article, fearing the subjects' anonymity was not secure and that references to sexual activity and birth control were inappropriate for younger students.
- Reynolds also objected to the divorce article because it quoted a student criticizing her father, and he believed the parents should have been given an opportunity to respond.
- Believing there was no time to revise the articles before the scheduled press run, Reynolds directed the journalism teacher to withhold the two pages containing the articles from publication.
- This decision also resulted in the removal of several other articles on the same pages to which Reynolds had no objection.
Procedural Posture:
- Three student journalists sued the Hazelwood School District and school officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging a First Amendment violation.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, conducted a bench trial and found in favor of the school district, holding that no constitutional violation had occurred.
- The students, as appellants, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's judgment, finding that the newspaper was a public forum and that the principal had violated the students' First Amendment rights.
- The Hazelwood School District, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a public high school principal remove articles concerning pregnancy and divorce from a school-sponsored newspaper, based on his judgment that the articles were inappropriate, without violating the student journalists' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, the principal can remove the articles without violating the students' First Amendment rights. The Court holds that educators may exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The Court first determined that the school newspaper was not a public forum, as the school had not, by policy or practice, opened its pages for indiscriminate use by students. Instead, it was a supervised learning experience within the school curriculum. Therefore, the more stringent 'material and substantial disruption' standard from Tinker v. Des Moines does not apply. The school's authority to censor curricular speech is justified to ensure students learn the intended lessons, to avoid presenting material inappropriate for the maturity level of the audience, and to prevent the school from being seen as endorsing the students' views. Principal Reynolds' concerns about protecting student privacy, journalistic fairness, and shielding younger students from sensitive topics were legitimate pedagogical concerns, and his decision to delete the pages was reasonable under the circumstances.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No, the principal cannot remove the articles without violating the students' First Amendment rights. The dissent argues that the majority creates an artificial distinction between personal and school-sponsored speech and that the 'material and substantial disruption' standard from Tinker should apply to all student speech. The school newspaper operated as a forum for student expression, and the principal's censorship was based on his personal disagreement with the articles' content, not on any pedagogical grounds or fear of disruption. The principal's censorship constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, as he suppressed speech on sensitive topics merely because he found them unsuitable. Furthermore, the principal's method was overly broad; instead of making specific edits or publishing a disclaimer, he resorted to 'brutal censorship' by removing entire pages, which is an unthinking contempt for individual rights.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtailed the scope of student First Amendment protections previously established by Tinker v. Des Moines. It created a new, more deferential standard for school-sponsored speech, distinguishing it from private student expression that merely occurs on school grounds. The 'legitimate pedagogical concerns' standard grants school administrators broad authority to censor student expression in newspapers, yearbooks, theatrical productions, and other curricular activities. This ruling has empowered schools to regulate the content of any expressive activity that might be perceived as bearing the school's endorsement, shifting the balance of power from student editors to school officials.
