September 12, 2011
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1987- 88
Posted by Max Filby under 4, Case Briefs[6] Comments
1. THE FACTS
In May 1983, Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other student journalists at Hazelwood East High School filed suit against the Hazelwood school District. Kuhlmeier and the two other staff members did this after the principal, Robert Reynolds, required the deletion of two pages from the school paper on May 13, 1983.
The articles Reynolds believed to be inappropriate concerned one about pregnancy and one about how divorce affected students. While names were originally stricken from the pregnancy story, Reynolds believed that the names of students could be inferred. Reynolds also thought that it was unfair to call certain students’ parents out in the story about divorce. However, instead of deleing the two stories, Reynolds eliminated the two whole pages that the articles sat on, including the other stories on that accompanied them on those pages.
Kuhlmeier and the two other newspaper staff members filed their suit in the Federal district court, claiming that the school district and school officials violated their First Amendment rights.
2. LEGAL ISSUES/ BACKGROUND
Kuhlmeier and the two staff members of Hazelwood East’s school paper alleged that their first amendment rights were violated by Principal, Robert Reynolds’s decision to strike to pages from the publication’s May issue on May 13, 1983.
Kuhlmeier filed suit against the school district and school officials. Throughout the argument and deciding process, the courts followed precedent from Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The precedent standard stated that school officials or educators do not violate first amendment rights by refusing to allow the creation of a school sponsored publication.
3. THE DECISION
The court found that Kuhlmeier’s first amendment rights were not violated in 1988. It said that the principal was acting reasonably and that the school officials and district essentially have the right to deny publication of something that is school sponsored. The Hazelwood East newspaper was considered part of school curriculum and therefore considered school sponsored.
4. ANALYSIS
The court made its decision based on previous precedent in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The court made its decision because the newspaper in question was a school-sponsored publication. Therefore, the school holds the right to deny publication as it did in this case.
5. QUESTIONS
- Was it actually constitutional for the court to rule in favor of Hazelwood School district?
- How does this case further extend a limit on freedom of speech?
- In what, if any cases would this precedent not apply?
6 thoughts on “Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1987- 88”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 12th, 2011 at 11:02 am
But the precedent set in the Tinker case was in favor of student speech. Try to explain how this case was different, according to the court.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I can sympathize with the argument that public school officials are justified in limiting students’ speech and acts of speech through school-sponosored publications or venues, but it is the taxpayers who provide this money. I have no way of knowing what the positions of the parents in this school district were, but ultimately it would require organized community involvement to change this policies. I do agree that the perspectives of the parents in the divorce story should too have been included.
As for the court’s judgement on the matter, I suppose it was correct, as the law is written. I do not agree, howwver, with the level of censorship in this case because I believe these topics to be of a sort perfectly suitable to students of even the lowest age in a high school environment. If students were allowed to engage in a more honest, open dialogue on these matters it is possible they may through this more holistic understanding gain a better grasp on the responsibilities these decisions and situations really entail.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
*these policies; and *however. My bad.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
I do believe that schools and principals have the Constitutional right to remove material from publications because it is a school sponsored vehicle. It took me a while to fathom this because my high school newspaper, for the most part, was not under prior review. However, I do believe that principals do have the responsibility to know what their student publications are producing because high school students are easily influenced by what they read. Because of this, I do believe the principal had some right to take the articles on teen pregnancy and parental divorce out of the newspaper. However, I do not agree that he was right to take out two full pages of the newspaper. I believe that is restricting speech without giving reason. Yes, those two articles may be deemed inappropriate, but the other articles on those pages may not.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
I do not agree that the principal took away a full two pages of the student school paper because of two stories that he did not agree with. If anything the prinicpal should have just took down the individual stories regarding pregnancy and divorce. High school students should have minimum free speech rights under school sponsored publications. However, I do understand to a certain point why the school administration has control over school publications or venues because of liability and legal issues.
Even though it was a high school publication they should of had a right of free speech to a certain point. Pregancy and divorce stories are not inappropriate stories to publish, if the journalists were allowed by the people in the stories to publish it. Also, with the prinicpal just ripping out a full two pages instead of taking out the specific stories can hurt the other journalists that wrote stories on those pages.
September 16th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
I think that this would not happen with the BGNEWS because they have an advisor and are on good relationships with authority members. I also think that papers kind of regulate themselves. If one of the reporters on the BGNEWS says something about a university official they will go to them and interview them or ask them if its true. The University’s answers are obviously going to favor the university and present it in its best light. I believe these restrictions make it harder for a case like this to happen at bg.