No Free Speech at Schools?

Crimson, I'm not sure where you teach, but does your state have a law that protects high school reporters and newspapers under the First Amendment? That was always one of the hardest to reconcile for me in studying the Court's rulings on the First Amendment: a student's First Amendment rights don't stop at the schoolhouse gate, unless of course they work for the newspaper, and then they can be censored.

 

They're protected by the First Amendment (because we are a public forum, we still abide by the Tinker standard), and it's already gone to press.

You have two standards -- Tinker & Hazelwood. If your paper is a public forum and accepts student and community input with minimal faculty interference (I am the final filter, but I edit stories for grammar and style in an effort to teach, but I don't really get in the way of content decisions unless I deem it inappropriate or potentially libelous, and we accept letters from anyone), then the Tinker standard applies, and there is a very narrow view of what can be censored (essentially, something libelous, advocating illegal activity or something that would cause an extreme disruption of learning). If it's not, the Hazelwood standard applies, principals can use prior review to censor anything they deem not in line with the school's goals and standards, and anything discussing sexual content, drug use, anything seen as "inappropriate for the age" can be censored.

I'm just waiting for the $#!+storm to hit on Friday when they hit the streets. They get passed out at 10:30, I'm probably in the principal's office at 10:35, and have the new school board member on the phone at 10:40.

Just because the First Amendment exists doesn't mean administrators can't threaten to eliminate your job or your program in the next round of "budget cutting" if they don't like what's in the paper. And I've seen that happen to a lot of publications advisers. Thankfully, I've got a pretty good relationship with my principal.

 

Yeah, I was just wondering about the legal side of it, since several states have now adopted actual laws extending the First Amendment to high school student reporters.

 

I think that the high school newspaper is treated no differently than the high school play, in that the administration can exercise prior restraint in the name of educational purposes. If you look at the Hazelwood decision, the reason they said they censored it wasn't because they found the content objectionable, but because they had fears about its accuracy, and about outing the father of a student who was supposed to be anonymous. Same reason we would pull back a story if someone got ripped without a chance to reply.

 

Crimson,

Here's what I'm talking about. It's Iowa's student free expression law, which basically puts all student newspapers under the Tinker decision.

https://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/law_library.asp?id=8

 

This gives them huge latitude:

"(3) Cause the material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school."

What is a substantial disruption?

What if 90 percent of the students are pissed, but only a little bit?

What if only one student is pissed, but he's insanely pissed. Like walks into the classroom and starts throwing desks around pissed off. Screaming at the newspaper editor in the middle of biology.

"Substantial disruption"? Seems pretty "substantial" to me.

 

No easy answer for this.

Insane to require this girl to cheer for this player.

But as a cheerleader, it is part of the "job" to cheer. If she does not want to cheer for a certain player, then I can see her grounds for removal.

Common sense was not used by the school admin here. They should have found a middle ground, and her not cheering for that player was it.

 

To crystallize this:

(1) The school was idiotic. And wrong.
(2) But the school did not infringe on the girl's free speech rights.

 

Is it really up to the point where the superintendent, principal, and assistant principals are screaming and ordering you to cheer for that player or leave? It's almost like they were defending the player, which leads me to my next point. Why was this guy still on the basketball team? I don't know many high school basketball players who are allowed to play after rape accusations.

 

If you do not want to say the Pledge of Allegiance in class, what you do is sit quietly. That is your right.

Where you lose a lot of your rights as a student is when you join a club or a team. As odd as it sounds, but it's true.

Look drug testing students and you will see that a kid who just shows up to school cannot be tested, but as soon as you join a club (that can travel away from the school) you could be drug tested.

 

My first thought was why was he playing as well, but the first jury did not indict him, so essentially he was not charged with anything. The charges that stuck cam after this game.

I think I am reading that correctly.

 

Also, haven't the Pledge of Allegiance cases been decided at least partly on freedom of religion grounds - i.e. the students were Jehovah's Witnesses exercising their religious freedom by not saluting the flag?