Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (No. 86-836) (1988)
Journalism students in St. Louis from Hazelwood East High School had the privilege to have a newspaper that was sponsored by the school known as ‘The Spectrum’. In one of its publications, a story about divorce as well as teen pregnancy was featured, but the principle felt that the story was very inappropriate for high school students. Before the publication, he decided to remove the two pages that were offensive according to him, and he did it without notifying the journalism club. The students felt that this decision was premature because, through a discussion, they would have had a chance to tell the story without offending anyone and to make the necessary changes. The principle deleted not only the ‘inappropriate’ story, but other stories and articles that were non-offensive were also deleted. The journalism students felt that the principle infringed on their first amendment rights which is why they took the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. However, the court decided against the students. It said that the principle and the school’s authority had the right and freedom to remove any stories and articles that have been written within the school grounds under the school curriculum. Nevertheless, the students went to the court of appeal, which reversed the decision finding the school paper as a public forum, and the school has the authority to censor the articles only in extreme circumstances. The school felt slighted with this decision and decide to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided against the journalism students in a 5-3 decision on the basis that the public schools do not have to let students excise their freedom of speech if it does mesh with the school’s values and educational mission.
The former students who were working as staff members in the school are the ones who instigated the journalism students to take the case to court. The filed a case against the school in the Federal District Court against the school officials and the school district, who were the petitioners, alleging that they infringed on the respondents’ First Amendment rights when they deleted the two pages form the school newspaper. These two pages highlighted the influence divorce has on the students and the students’ experiences with teen pregnancy. The district court held that there were no violations on anyone’s rights, and the court of appeal reversed this ruling. The first amendments rights of the journalism students are not automatically coextensive, especially in regard to the rights of adults in different settings; thus they must be applied under the school environment, which is unique characteristics. Therefore, the school does not need to tolerate students’ freedom of speech when it does not consistently follow or adhere to the educational mission and the school’s inherent values. Moreover, the school newspaper is not necessarily be considered as a public forum if the school authorities have not, by practice or by policy, opened the facility to the general public for indiscriminate use. Additionally, the school authority, in essence, the school principal, has the power to restrict speech from any of the school’s faculty.
This case reflects both liberal and conservative perspectives in reference to both the petitioners and respondents point of view. A liberal perspective views the government, or the point of authority in an institution has the ability to achieve equality and equal opportunity for everyone. This liberal perspective can be based in the ruling by the district court and the Supreme Court’s decision. Both these courts believed that the school authority has the right to curtail anything within the school grounds that they feel does not meet the educational values and does not promote the school’s mission. The conservative perspective believes in personal responsibility and individual liberty. This viewpoint has the understanding that an institution’s authority should provide the necessary freedoms to excise their rights and the defence from the journalism students reiterate this viewpoint.