Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Censorship, Student Press Rights
“
. . . educators do not offend the First Amendment by
exercising editorial control over the style and content of
student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities
so long as their actions are reasonably related to
legitimate pedagogical concerns."
— Justice White, speaking for the majority
Hazelwood East High School Principal Robert Reynolds procedurally reviewed the
Spectrum, the school’s student-written newspaper, before publication. In May 1983,
he decided to have certain pages pulled because of the sensitive content in two of the
articles, and acted quickly to remove them in order to meet the paper’s publication
deadline. The journalism students felt that this censorship was a direct violation of
their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court decided that Principal Reynolds
had the right to such editorial decisions, as he had “legitimate pedagogical concerns.”
Terms of use
These terms of use (the “Terms”) govern your use of Street Law, Inc.’s (“Street Law”) website (the
“website”). Please read these terms carefully before using the website as they create a legally binding
contract between you and Street Law. By accessing, browsing, or otherwise using the website, you
acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agree to be bound by these terms that may be
made by Street Law. You also represent and warrant that your use of the web site will comply with
any and all applicable laws and regulations. If at any time you do not agree to these terms, including
as amended by Street Law at its sole discretion from time to time, you should immediately terminate
your use of this website.
www.LandmarkCases.org and www.StreetLaw.org are owned and operated by Street Law. All
materials on the website, including, but not limited to, the audio, video and audiovisual content,
visual interfaces, interactive features, information, graphics, design, compilation, computer code,
products, software, services, and all other elements of the website that are provided by Street Law
(“Street Law Materials”), are protected by United States copyright, trade dress, patent, and
trademark laws, international conventions, and all other relevant intellectual property and proprietary
rights, and applicable laws. All Street Law Materials contained on the website are the property of
Street Law or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies and/or third-party licensors. All trademarks,
service marks, and trade names contained in the Street Law Materials or on the website are
proprietary to Street Law or its affiliates and/or third-party licensors.
Street Law, Inc. authorizes users of www.LandmarkCases.org to download, distribute, copy, link to,
and/or reproduce the Street Law Materials found on this site for non-commercial educational use
only. Other uses are prohibited.
As a courtesy, Street Law, Inc. request that the following copyright acknowledgement (found on the
footer of the printable materials) remain present on all copies: © 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the
Supreme Court Historical Society
You can read StreetLaw.org’s complete terms of use here: www.streetlaw.org/termsofuse
Contact
If you have questions or comments about these materials, please contact
[email protected].
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
Background Summary & Questions (•••)
In May 1983, students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis,
Missouri, generated the final edition of their school paper, the Spectrum. As was customary, they
submitted the paper to their advisor, Howard Emerson, who was new to the job. He followed the
procedures of the recently departed previous advisor, giving the principal, Robert Reynolds, the
opportunity to review the paper prior to publication.
When Reynolds reviewed the paper, he found two articles that concerned him. The first article
addressed the issue of teen pregnancy, including comments from pregnant students at the school.
Although names were not given, Reynolds thought there were enough details in the article to make it
easy for other students to determine the identities of the pregnant teens. He was concerned about
the privacy of those students. The second article was about divorce and, like the first article, this one
included personal articles. In this article, Reynolds was not concerned so much about the students,
but, rather, about what they said about their families. For instance, one student whose parents were
divorced made negative comments about her father, claiming that her father was always out with the
guys, that he didn't spend enough time with his family, and that the father and mother were always
arguing. Reynolds was troubled by the fact that the father had not been given a chance to defend
himself by responding to his daughter's comments. He also noticed that the article mentioned sex
and birth control. He did not think that students in ninth grade should be reading about sex and
birth control.
Reynolds wanted the students to make changes in their articles, but he was afraid that if they took
the time to do so, they would miss the deadline for publishing the Spectrum. He did not want that
to happen, especially because it was the last issue of the year and there would not be another chance
to publish the paper. He felt like he had to make a quick decision, so he told Emerson to delete the
two pages with the questionable articles and publish the remainder of the paper. He informed his
superiors in the school system of this decision; they supported him wholeheartedly.
The students had invested a great deal of time and energy in producing the paper and felt that they
had followed proper journalism procedures. If they had been approached about the problems, they
may have been able to resolve them. They were upset to find out instead that two pages, which
included a number of non-offensive articles, had been deleted. They felt that this censorship was a
direct violation of their First Amendment rights, so they took their case to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri. This court did not agree with the students; the judges said that
school officials might impose limits on students' speech in activities that are "an integral part of the
school's educational function" as long as their decision "has a substantial and reasonable basis." In
other words, the court felt that if the school has a good reason to do so, it could place limits on
curricular activities, such as the publication of the school newspaper.
Unhappy with the outcome, the students appealed their case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. This court reversed the decision of the lower court, saying that the students' First
Amendment rights were violated. In the opinion, the court conceded that the newspaper was indeed
a part of the school curriculum but noted that it was also a "public forum." As a public forum, the
newspaper was "intended to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint." Because the paper
was a forum for student discussion, the principal or other officials could censor it only when
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
"necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline . . . or the
rights of others."
The school appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United
States agreed to hear the case. In determining whether or not students' rights were violated, it would
consider whether or not the student newspaper was a public forum and whether the First
Amendment "requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech."
Questions to Consider
1. Why did the newspaper advisor give the paper to Principal Reynolds for review? Was this
standard procedure?
2. What concerns did Principal Reynolds have regarding the two articles? Were these legitimate
concerns? Do you think the principal had any options other than deleting entire pages from the
student paper?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
3. What rights did the students believe had been violated? What is the relevant wording of the First
Amendment?
4. Were there steps the students could have taken other than filing a lawsuit?
5. Should a principal be able to censor student newspapers? If so, under what conditions?
6. Should a principal or other school authority be able to silence other forms of student speech? If
so, under what conditions? How does speech by an individual student differ from speech by the
school newspaper?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
Background Summary & Questions (••)
In May 1983, students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis,
Missouri, created the final edition of the school paper, the Spectrum. Before publishing the paper,
they submitted it to their advisor, Howard Emerson, so he could review it. Emerson was new to the
job, so he followed the procedures of the previous advisor. Those guidelines required him to give
Principal Robert Reynolds, the opportunity to review the paper before it was published.
When Principal Reynolds reviewed the paper, he found two articles that concerned him. The first
dealt with the issue of teen pregnancy. It included comments from pregnant students at the school.
To protect their privacy, names were not given. However, when Reynolds read the article, he
realized that the details in the article would make it easy for other students to identify the pregnant
teens. The second article addressed the issue of divorce. Like the first article, this one included
personal articles. One student, whose parents were divorced, made negative comments about her
father. She said that her father was always out with the guys and that her father didn't spend enough
time with the family. Principal Reynolds was troubled by the fact that the father had not been given
a chance to defend himself by responding to his daughter's comments. He also noticed that the
article mentioned sex and birth control. He did not think that students in ninth grade should be
reading about sex and birth control.
Reynolds wanted the journalism students to modify the articles. However, it was almost the end of
the school year. If they took the time to revise, they would miss the deadline for publishing the
newspaper. If that happened, the other students might never get to read the paper. He felt like he
had to act quickly, so he told Emerson to delete the two pages with the offending articles and
publish the rest of the Spectrum. He told his supervisors about this decision and they agreed with
him.
The students had worked hard on the paper and felt that they had followed proper journalism
procedures. If they had been approached about the problems, they may have been able to correct
them. They were upset to find out instead that two pages, which included a number of nonoffensive articles, had been deleted. They felt that their First Amendment rights had been violated.
They took the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The Court did not agree with the students. In the ruling, the judges said that school officials may
impose limits on students' speech in activities that are "an integral part of the school's educational
function" as long as their decision "has a substantial and reasonable basis." In other words, the
Court felt that if the school has a good reason to do so, it can place limits on curricular activities,
such as the publication of the school newspaper.
Unhappy with the outcome, the students appealed their case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit Court. This court reversed the decision of the lower court, saying that the students' First
Amendment rights were violated. In the opinion, the Court explained that the newspaper was part
of the school curriculum but was also a "public forum." As a public forum, the newspaper was
"intended to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint". Because the paper was a forum
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
for student discussion, the principal or other officials could censor it only when "necessary to avoid
material and substantial interference with school work or discipline . . . or the rights of others."
The school appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United
States agreed to hear the case. In determining whether or not students' rights were violated, it would
consider whether or not the student newspaper was a public forum and whether the First
Amendment "requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech."
Questions to Consider
1. Why did the newspaper advisor give the paper to Principal Reynolds for review? Was that
standard procedure?
2. What concerns did Principal Reynolds have regarding the two articles? Were these legitimate
concerns? Were there other ways that the principal could have handled the situation?
3. Do you think Principal Reynolds was justified in deleting the two pages of the paper? Should a
principal be able to censor student newspapers? If so, under what conditions?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
4. What rights did the students believe had been violated?
5. Were there any steps the students could have taken other than filing a lawsuit?
6. Should a principal or other school authority be able to silence other forms of student speech? If
so, under what conditions? How does speech by an individual student differ from speech by the
school newspaper?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
Background Summary & Questions (•)
The journalism class at Hazelwood East High School wrote articles and put them together for the
school paper. They gave the newspaper to their teacher, Howard Emerson. Mr. Emerson showed
the newspaper to the principal. He asked the principal if it was okay to make copies and hand them
out to students at the school.
Principal Reynolds did not like what he read. First, there was an article about pregnant students. It
described the students, but it did not give their names. Principal Reynolds was afraid that students
would be able to figure out who the pregnant students were. He also noticed that the article
mentioned sex and birth control. He did not think that students in ninth grade should be reading
about sex and birth control.
There was another article that Principal Reynolds did not like. This one talked about divorce. In it,
one student said things about her father. For example, she said that her father went out too much.
She also said that her father didn't spend enough time with his family. The father did not get a
chance to tell his side of the story. Principal Reynolds thought this was unfair.
Principal Reynolds thought the paper needed to be changed. But it was almost the end of the school
year. He was afraid that it would take the class a long time to change it. If it took too long, the
school year would be over and the other students would not get the paper. So he told Mr. Emerson
to remove the pages that had the articles about pregnancy and divorce. He said to make copies of
the rest of the paper.
The students were very angry. They had spent a lot of time writing the articles. They could have
fixed them if Principal Reynolds had given them a chance. Instead, he deleted two pages that also
contained other articles. They felt that this was a violation of their First Amendment rights. They
went to the U.S. District Court. The court did not agree with them. It said that school officials may
limit students' speech in the school newspaper if their decision has "a substantial and reasonable
basis." In other words, if he has a good reason, it is okay for a principal to limit students' speech.
The students appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the U.S.
District Court. This court said that the school paper was a "public forum," or place where students
could express their views. The judges said that the school could not censor the paper except "to
avoid . . . substantial interference with school work or discipline . . . or the rights of others." They
did not think that the articles about pregnancy would have interfered with schoolwork. They
thought the articles should have been printed.
The school appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of the United States
thought that this was an important case. It dealt with the rights of students. It agreed to hear
arguments from both sides.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
Questions to Consider
1. In the article about the pregnant students, what was Principal Reynolds worried about?
2. What did Principal Reynolds say was wrong with the article about divorce?
3. What did Principal Reynolds do to fix the problem? Did he have any other choices?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
4. What rights did the students say had been violated?
5. Do you think a principal should be allowed to limit what is said in a school newspaper? Why or
why not?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Important Vocabulary (•••/••)

removed (to remove)
Define:
Use in a sentence:

violated (to violate)
Define:
Use in a sentence:

appealed (to appeal)
Define:
Use in a sentence:

reverse
Define:
Use in a sentence:

interfered, interference (to interfere)
Define:
Use in a sentence:

censor
Define:
Use in a sentence:
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
BACKGROUND
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
Important Vocabulary (•)
As you read the background summary of the Hazelwood case, look for the important vocabulary
words that are italicized. When you come to one of those terms, look at this page for its definition.
Then, check to see if you understand the definition by either sketching a picture of what you think it
means, or by putting it in your own words. Feel free to add terms from the reading that you would
like to practice.

removed (to remove)
Definition: To take away or eliminate
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:

violated (to violate)
Definition: To break or disregard (a law or promise, for example)
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:

appealed (to appeal)
Definition: To request formally that a lower court decision be examined and reconsidered by a
higher court
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

BACKGROUND
reverse
Definition: To overturn the decision of a lower court and decide the case differently
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:

interfered, interference (to interfere)
Definition: To create a distraction or obstacle
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:

censor
Definition: To examine and remove information to prevent others from access to it
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
BACKGROUND
How the Case Moved Through the Court System
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITIES
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
One Step Forward for First Amendment Rights (warm
up/review)
This activity will help prepare you to learn about the Hazelwood case. It can also be used as a
review activity after you have studied the case.
Directions
Stand shoulder to shoulder with other students along a line on one side of the room. You will be
asked several questions. For each question, if you can answer “yes,” take one step forward. If not,
continue standing where you are.
The purpose of this is to help you remember something in the end, so do not worry if you have
forgotten something at the moment. There will be no “winner” - only students who remember
more than they did before the activity.
Here is a list of possible statements your teacher will say aloud. (He or she may not use them all.)
Remember, if you can answer “yes,” then step forward. Be prepared to explain your answer or your
opinion. If you cannot answer yes at first, use the space next to each question to fill in the answers
during the class discussion.
1. I know one right that people have in our country.
2. I can name the important document that gives the framework for our country’s government.
3. I know which part of the Constitution includes the rights of the people.
4. I know which Constitutional Amendment provides people with freedom of expression.
5. I can name at least two rights protected by the First Amendment.
6. I can name at least one more right (protected by the First Amendment.)
7. I can name all five major rights protected by the First Amendment.
8. I can explain who the Bill of Rights protects people from.
9. I think there should be no limitations on these rights.
10. I can name at least one exception to when the government can restrict or limit freedom of
speech.
11. I think freedom of the press is more important than the right to assemble.
12. I think freedom of the press means that the press can write (or say) whatever it wants whenever
it wants to.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
(continued on next page)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
You Decide: Were Students' Rights Violated?
1. Read each situation in the table on the next page. Use information from the excerpt of the
majority opinion to help you complete the chart.
2. Answer the question: "Were students' rights violated?" by placing an "X" in the appropriate
space.
3. Provide a brief explanation for your answer.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Were the
students' rights
violated?
Situation
Yes
The school's TV station covers an article on the new policy that requires
that students wear IDs. In the article, many of the students are critical of
the policy. The advisor reviews the show and finds that there are many
factual errors regarding the policy. He tells the students that if they want
the article to air, they must revise it.
The drama club wants to perform a play. Because it involves some
sexually explicit scenes, they say they will perform it off-campus at a local
recreation center. The principal says this is not allowed and they must
select another play.
A student works at home to create a Web site that contains comments
that are critical of his teachers. The principal sends him to in-school
suspension for two days and makes him write a letter of apology to each
of his teachers.
The student newspaper publishes an article about a shoplifting incident
that occurred during a school-sponsored field trip. The school board
censors the article, saying it makes the school system look bad.
The art club plans a showcase night. One of the students has painted a
picture of other students drinking alcohol at a school football game. The
art teacher says this painting cannot be displayed at the school's showcase
night because it seems to advocate the use of alcohol.
The newspaper staff writes an editorial in support of legalizing marijuana.
Their advisor tells them that if they want it to be printed, they must
present both sides of the issue.
Students on the newspaper staff create an online version of the school's
newspaper. In it, they provide advice on where to get birth control. The
principal tells the staff to delete the article because its contents are not
appropriate for the younger students in the school.
The Student Government Association wants to hold a rally in support of
abortion rights in the school's auditorium. Their advisor tells them they
cannot do this.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
No
Explanation
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
What Would You Do?
Directions
Pretend you work on a high school newspaper and it is your job to decide whether to publish
articles. Assume you live in a state that has not passed "anti-Hazelwood" legislation extending
greater First Amendment protection to school newspapers than that afforded by Hazelwood.
Below are brief descriptions of six articles you might receive. Your teacher will put you in groups
and have each group discuss whether or not to publish the article, and why, and also whether you
think the administration of your school would want to censor these articles. You should then be
prepared to discuss your article with the rest of the class, and your reason for publishing or not
publishing the article, keeping in mind the Supreme Court's decision in the Hazelwood case.
1. Following a drug arrest at your school, a student writes a first-person account of how his friend
got arrested. In the article, he admits to some activities that are in violation of school rules and
state law. He criticizes both the police and the security guards at your school. He does not want
the article published anonymously.
2. Reporters from your paper write an article based on a commercial Web site on which students
post their ratings of their teachers. The article includes sample comments on teachers in your
school, both positive and negative. The negative comments include: "If you get this teacher, run
for the parking lot," "Can't teach his way out of a paper bag," and "this teacher had an affair
with another teacher (not named)." The teachers are named.
3. A reporter for your paper writes a long article about the problem of drug use in your school. She
interviews several students about their use of marijuana but does not use their names or other
personal details about the students that could help identify them. The article makes it clear that
marijuana use is widespread in your school.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
4. Reporters for your paper discover that the star quarterback for your football team does not live
within the boundaries of the school. They write an article exposing this fact and, of course,
naming the quarterback. The consequences of publishing this article will include forfeiting all the
wins from your school's football season, which is just ending with a good shot at winning the
state championship.
5. A teacher approaches a reporter for your paper with an article about cheating being tolerated in
your school, but the teacher will not agree to have her name used in the article. She says she
caught a student cheating on a final exam and gave the student a zero. This failing grade on the
final exam resulted in the student, a senior, being ineligible to participate in the school musical,
in which she was scheduled to be the lead. Her parents pressured the principal to overturn the
grade and the principal did so. Publishing the article would, of course, reveal the identity of the
student involved but not the teacher.
6. There are high-stakes standardized tests given in your school every May. In order to graduate,
students must pass these tests. Students have told your reporters that other students obtained a
copy of the test in advance from a teacher. The students involved agree to tell what happened if
none of the names of any of the parties involved would appear in the article.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Create Your Own Political Cartoon
React to the Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier by creating a political cartoon.
For assistance in this process, read the Washington Post's How to Draw an Editorial Cartoon article.
To make it more interesting, you could create the cartoon from a different perspective. For instance,
you could pretend that you are a high school journalist in 1988, the year the Supreme Court of the
United States handed down its decision in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Should the State Enact "Anti-Hazelwood" Legislation?
Background
The decision in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier has made it much easier for principals and other school
officials to censor student expression. In an effort to prevent this from happening, a number of
states and localities have passed student free speech legislation. These laws limit the circumstances
under which student publications can be censored and thus extend to student journalists greater
protection than that which is afforded them under Hazelwood. States that have enacted these "antiHazelwood" laws include: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, and Massachusetts. Other
states have tried to pass legislation but have failed. Some failed because they could not get a majority
in the legislature and in other cases because the executive vetoed them.
Some people wonder how states can pass laws that seem to challenge decisions of the federal courts.
Mike Hiestand, of the Student Press Law Center, explains this apparent contradiction in the
following words:
"Hazelwood was a First Amendment case. Think of the First Amendment as establishing a "floor"
of federal protection from government censorship. No government official-federal, state or localmay ever act in a way nor may lawmakers ever pass a law or policy that provides individuals with less
free speech protection than that required by the First Amendment. That's why a public high school
principal can't institute a policy, for example, that allows her to halt publication of any material she
simply disagrees with. The First Amendment—and specifically Hazelwood—requires more than
that.
Nothing, however, prevents lawmakers from passing a law (or school board members from enacting
a local district policy) that requires school and government officials to provide student journalists
with more free speech protection. In other words, Hazelwood and the First Amendment establish
the ground floor of censorship protection - but anyone - where they believe the First Amendment
provides insufficient protection against government censorship - can raise the ceiling and establish a
higher floor. And that is precisely what state lawmakers and school board officials have done in
passing student free expression laws and policies. [1]"
In other words, a state can pass a law or a school district can implement a policy that expands
students' First Amendment rights by limiting the circumstances under which principals or school
officials can censor student publications. In essence, this would give students the same free speech
rights they had before the Hazelwood decision was made. If, on the other hand, a state tried to pass
a law which placed further restrictions on students' free expression (i.e., greater restrictions than
those found in the Hazelwood case, it would be unconstitutional.
[1] Mike Hiestand. Student Press Law Center. "Understanding 'Anti-Hazelwood' Laws." [Online] 7
August 2001.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Directions
Your state legislature has decided to consider the issue of adopting its own “Anti-Hazelwood" law.
They have invited the public to an open forum to discuss this issue.
1. Your teacher will assign you to one of the following groups:
■Student journalists
■Newspaper advisors
■Concerned parents
■Principals
■Local school officials
2. Brainstorm the pros and cons of anti-Hazelwood legislation with your group.
3. Determine if your group is for or against the legislation.
4. Work with your group to prepare comments to be delivered at the forum. Be sure to include the
following in your comments:
■What is your position on the legislation?
■What are your reasons?
■What would you like to see included or omitted from the policy?
5. Present your findings to the "state legislature" that will be composed of students in the class.
After hearing all of the arguments, they will debate and vote on the issue of anti-Hazelwood
legislation.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
For Extension
Now that you have explored this issue, you are ready to convince the state legislature to adopt your
personal viewpoint. You may do this by appealing directly to the state legislature or by trying to
convince other citizens to adopt your viewpoint.
1. Create an outline. Identify your position and list arguments that support that viewpoint.
2. Choose from the list below:
 Write a letter to your state legislature.
 Write a newspaper editorial.
 Create a political cartoon.
 Write a speech to be delivered to an audience. On a separate sheet of paper, write a
paragraph in which you describe the target audience and the speech techniques used.
 Create a brochure or print advertisement. Your brochure should contain visuals and text. On
a separate sheet of paper, write a paragraph in which you explain the message, the target
audience, and the propaganda techniques used.
 Create a storyboard for a television commercial. On a separate sheet of paper, write a
paragraph in which you explain the message, the target audience, the propaganda techniques,
and the video and audio techniques used.
 Create your own product. Be sure to have your teacher approve this before you begin.
3. Use the information from your outline to help you create the product you have selected. In your
product, clearly state and support your position.
Additional Resources
State Student Free Expression Laws & Regulations:
http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/law_library.asp
Anti-Hazelwood Legislation Continues to Face Uphill Battle:
http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=100&year=1999
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Evaluating Web Sites
Directions
Familiarize yourself with the definitions below. Then complete the chart on the next page. Explore
the websites while evaluating their authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, and coverage.

authority
Definition: Author is easily identified in the documentation; qualified to write and publish on
the subject; affiliated with a credible and reputable institution and/or publisher. The author is
well-known and respected in the field of study.

accuracy
Definition: It is noted on the Web page that the information is peer-reviewed, edited, and all
facts have been checked. There are no typos in the text and the information is presented
coherently.

objectivity
Definition: Information is presented without bias; both sides of the issue are represented; the
author, institution, and/or publisher are not using the information to influence the reader and
serve their own interests. The author acknowledges any controversial aspects or limitations to
the information/research they are providing.

currency
Definition: Information is up-to-date or very recently updated; the date of the last update is
clearly displayed. For primary and seminal works in a subject area, the currency element is
irrelevant, as the inherent worth of the work gives it longevity.

coverage
Definition: The content reflects the author has a knowledge of the subject matter and is aware of
current trends in the field. The author shows knowledge of schools of thought, theories, and
methodologies appropriate for research in the subject areas addressed. The document provides
the information proposed in the thesis statement and additional resources, such as a
bibliographies, works cited, links to other relevant Web sites, and information about similar
research and researchers in the subject area are offered. All information offered is cited in the
appropriate format for the subject areas and is verifiable.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Directions
1. Explore the three websites below independently.
2. Evaluate each site on its authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, and coverage. The total
should be the average of all the scores. Select a score of 0-3 for each section (with 1 being the
lowest and 3 being the highest, or best score). Use the following guidelines in the scoring
process:
■0 = does not meet the criteria
■1 = meets some of the criteria
Authority
■2 = meets most of the criteria relevant to this particular site
■3 = meets or exceeds the relevant criteria for this particular site
Accuracy
Objectivity Currency
Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier: A Complete Guide to
the Supreme Court Decision
http://www.splc.org/knowyourrig
hts/legalresearch.asp?id=4
Frist Amendment Center
http://www.firstamendmentschool
s.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=186
Ask Sybil Liberty
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/ask-sybil-liberty-aboutyour-right-free-expression
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Coverage
Total
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Questions to Consider
1. Was the Web site with the highest score the "best" site? What made it a good site?
2. Would you use the Web sites? Why or why not?
3. Is there any value in using the Web site that received the lowest score? Why or why not?
4. How will the process of evaluating these Web sites assist you in understanding the related case?
5. How will you use this Web site evaluation guide in the future?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Real World Case Study: Censorship of a StudentProduced Television Show
Introduction
Should the policy that applies to a school's print media also apply to its broadcast media? Why or
why not?
Directions
1. Read the article Student Press Protests Policy on the following page or at
http://www.splc.org/news/report_detail.asp?id=198&edition=9
2. Identify the following:
■Facts of the case
■Issue(s)
■Arguments on both sides
3. Look at Hazelwood's Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion on the following page.
4. If you were the students at Montgomery Blair High School, which arguments would you
advance when presenting your case to the Board of Education? Why?
5. If you were the officials at the education channel, which arguments would you advance when
presenting your case to the Board of Education? Why?
6. Read the articles Commission Works on Electronic Media Policy and Television Policy Finally
Adopted at Blair High School on the following page. What was the county's final decision?
Evaluate that decision.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
7. What impact will the decision have on future programming in Montgomery County?
After Effects
The school's principal, Phillip F. Gainous, was given the Courage in Student Journalism Award by
the Newseum for his role in supporting students' First Amendment rights. See the article, Newseum
presents 1st annual Courage in Student Journalism Awards, below for further information or visit
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=6424 to read it on the net.
Application
Read the article Story, Gay Teen Life Sparks Controversy, provided below or visit
http://www.splc.org/news/report_detail.asp?id=84&edition=12 to read it on the web.
1. If you were the students, how would you make your case to the existing board?
2. If you were on the board, what guidelines would you recommend?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Student Press Protests Policy
Winter 1997-98 - High School
Vol. XIX, No. 1 - Page 15
© 1997 Student Press Law Center
MARYLAND -- After battling censorship of a student television program last year, Blair High
School student journalists may face another fight, this time for all student media in the county.
Student journalists object to new regulations discovered after school began this fall which state in
part that no school-sponsored publication including student newspapers, yearbooks, plays, or
television shows may produce content that is "inconsistent with the shared values of our society."
Students believe this restrictive policy change may pave the way for more censorship. They say they
are frustrated because school officials deny that any revisions have been made to the publications
policy despite clear evidence.
Montgomery County Public Schools' spokesman Brian Porter said, "Some students and people
they're working with, maybe teachers, are very badly misinformed. There have been no changes in
policy at all."
When the Report read Porter two different versions of the district's Student Rights and
Responsibility regulations, one from the 1996-97 school year, and one that said it was revised in June
of 1997 that contained additional publication restrictions, Porter seemed confused.
He suggested that the explanation of the policy may have changed, but the regulations themselves
did not.
Students are outraged.
"The county claimed they were just editing and rewording [the existing publications policy] and
avoided having it brought to the public's attention or commented on by elected public officials," said
Adam Jentleson, a student journalist at Blair's television studio, WBNC.
Blair's newspaper, Silver Chips, has not been censored concedes Jentleson, but he claims this is part
of administration strategy. "The county office is too smart to censor anything yet," said Jentleson.
"If they censor anything, that gives us a peg to hang our whole argument on."
Jentleson said he would not be surprised if content regulations were imposed following a
controversy over a student show on WBNC last year.
An episode of Shades of Grey, a live show produced by Blair students and broadcast in their
community, featuring a same-sex marriage topic, was censored by school administrators in October
1996.
Students appealed to the school board, which overruled the superintendent in April and allowed the
Shades of Grey episode to air.
© 1997 Student Press Law Center
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
The board then ordered a panel comprised of school officials, teachers and students to draft a new
policy for electronic media that is still being deliberated. A decision on that policy was expected
before January.
As of November, WBNC was still forbidden from live broadcasting. Worried about the future of
student journalists in Montgomery County, Jentleson and other students have formed the Maryland
Coalition for a Free Student Press, whose ultimate goal is to pass state legislation to secure stronger
press freedoms for high school journalists.
"Montgomery County has always been very liberal in terms of its educational policies," said
Jentleson. "If this [publications policy] is enforced, it's a tremendous shame. It's scary to think of the
prospect of student journalists who will not really know what their rights are."
© 1997 Student Press Law Center
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 3. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools
"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" . . . A school need not
tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission." . . . even though the
government could not censor similar speech outside the school.
We deal first with the question whether Spectrum may appropriately be characterized as a forum for
public expression. The public schools do not possess all of the attributes of streets, parks, and other
traditional public forums that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly,
communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." . . . Hence, school
facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have "by policy or by
practice" opened those facilities "for indiscriminate use by the general public," . . . If the facilities
have instead been reserved for other intended purposes, "communicative or otherwise," then no
public forum has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the
speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community.
The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech—
the question that we addressed in Tinker—is different from the question whether the First
Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech. The former
question addresses educators' ability to silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur
on the school premises. The latter question concerns educators' authority over school-sponsored
publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and
members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These
activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a
traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to
impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.
Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student expression to
assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or
listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that
the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school. Hence, a school may
in its capacity as publisher of a school newspaper or producer of a school play "disassociate itself," .
. . not only from speech that would "substantially interfere with [its] work . . . or impinge upon the
rights of other students," . . . but also from speech that is, for example, ungrammatical, poorly
written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature
audiences. A school must be able to set high standards for the student speech that is disseminated
under its auspices—standards that may be higher than those demanded by some newspaper
publishers or theatrical producers in the "real" world—and may refuse to disseminate student
speech that does not meet those standards. In addition, a school must be able to take into account
the emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining whether to disseminate student
speech on potentially sensitive topics, which might range from the existence of Santa Claus in an
elementary school setting to the particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school setting. A
school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be
perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
"the shared values of a civilized social order," Fraser, supra, at 683, or to associate the school with
any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy…
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. Instead, we hold that
educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and
content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are
reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
…It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or
other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so
"directly and sharply implicate[d]," ibid., as to require judicial intervention to protect students'
constitutional rights…
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.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is therefore reversed.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Commission works on electronic media policy
September 21, 1997
© 1997 Student Press Law Center
MARYLAND -- After controversy rocked the Montgomery County School Board during the spring
semester, students and administrators have made progress towards a new set of guidelines for the
county cable system's education channel.
A commission of students, teachers, administrators and school system employees who operate the
station has sent its recommendation to Associate Superintendent Joseph Villani for further review.
Originally, school administrators refused to allow the airing of the Blair High School studentproduced "Shades of Grey" program on October 15, 1996. The show featured a panel discussion on
same-sex marriage.
After a battle with the school administration, WBNC executive producer Andrea Stuart eventually
won on appeal.
In an April 23 ruling, the board denied that the school district's cable channel served as "open
'public forums' for student or other public expression," but allowed the student to air the program
five times in May since "the discretion of the superintendent and his staff was not exercised
appropriately."
Only five of the eight board members supported the decision.
The board also ordered the rapid development of new guidelines for all future broadcasts and
proscribed all live programming until a policy had been approved, prompting students to call the
decision a "hollow victory" in The Washington Blade.
By May, the commission had determined new policy recommendations. Stuart said that the
commission "set up new standards for content and technical quality."
The suggested policy says content may not be slanderous or libelous and creates certain guidelines
for students to follow when material has a political nature, said Stuart. A section of the policy's
wording is in line with a "human relations" policy the school developed in 1996. That policy was an
effort to be more sensitive to the needs of groups such as minorities and homosexuals according to
Stuart.
"The school system doesn't want to take a stance with the television station," Stuart said. "They
really don't want any programming that isn't as they say 'fair' or 'equal.'"
According to Jamin Raskin, the lawyer who represented the students, the school district's policy on
print media does not include restrictions regarding political or controversial material. The only
speech proscribed is that which is obscene, libelous, encourages illegal activity or threatens to disrupt
the school day.
© 1997 Student Press Law Center
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Stuart -- a member of the commission expressed some concern over ambiguous language in the
recommendations for electronic media.
"It's really subjective, which is what worries me a bit," she said, adding, however, that she did not
think any programming the station had aired before would have been censored under the new
suggested policy.
Although there was little debate within the commission over content standards, said Stuart, the issue
of live programming could not be resolved. She said that rather than coming to a conclusion, the
commission drew up a list of the pros and cons of live programming and forwarded it with the rest
of the recommendation. Seven of the nine shows that Blair students broadcast over the 1996-97
school year were live.
"I produced a live show last year and it was an incredible growing experience," said Stuart. "Getting
community involvement is one of the most vital parts of live programming.... Whenever we go live
we have people call in and ask questions."
During May, no WBNC shows were broadcast live. Students sent shows "live-on-tape" to the cable
station's program director, Barbara Wood, who reviewed them before airing. Wood, who also was a
member of the commission, declined to comment on the recommendation or the future of live
programming at Blair.
"We do what the board tells us to do," said Wood, adding that until the board rules on the
commission's recommendation, the guidelines set up in the April 23 board decision would apply.
The school district office could not predict when the board would address the matter.
© 1997 Student Press Law Center
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Television policy finally adopted at Blair High School
Spring 1999 - High School
Vol. XX, No. 2 - Page 13
© 1999 Student Press Law Center
MARYLAND - After more than three years of discussing and debating, Blair High School finally
has accepted a broadcasting guideline and regulation proposal for their student television station.
Although Bob Becker, a media attorney representing the Washington Professional Chapter of the
Society of Professional Journalists, says he is not sure the new regulations, which appear to be only
minor alterations to an earlier rejected draft, will steer clear of future controversies. But the students
and administrators are satisfied that a guideline finally exists. The need for guidelines developed after
the student produced talk show series, Shades of Grey, shot an episode about same sex marriages in
1996, and the superintendent refused to air it. The students responded by filing a complaint. A
proposal for broadcast programming was introduced during a September school board meeting, but
was not passed because of disagreements over how much control the administration should have
over the show and what type of content would be deemed appropriate. The plan that did pass,
however, consists of minor revisions from the first plan. The provision that stated "Programs/tapes
will be unacceptable for cablecasting ... [if] the program contains language that is disrespectful,
verbally abusive, or insensitive to others" was deleted "to promote consistency in the application of
the guidelines," wrote Superintendent Paul Vance to the Board of Education. However, the policy
still prohibits students to air programs that "as a whole or in significant part, condone harassment,
physical violence or illegal discrimination toward any person."
© 1999 Student Press Law Center
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Newseum presents 1st annual Courage in Student Journalism Awards
April 14th, 1988
(excerpted from FreedomForum.org)
ARLINGTON, Va. — To celebrate its first anniversary, the Newseum, the interactive museum of
news, has established the Courage in Student Journalism Awards. The awards will be presented
annually to school officials and student journalists. Student winners will be journalists who have
shown determination, despite difficulty and resistance, in exercising their First Amendment press
rights. School administrators will be selected on the basis of demonstrated support, under difficult
circumstances, for the First Amendment press rights of their schools' student media.
This year's winners are Phillip F. Gainous, principal of Montgomery Blair High School in Silver
Spring, Md., and Dan Vagasky, former editor in chief of the Bulldog Express at Otsego (Mich.)
Middle School.
The awards will be presented at a luncheon at the Newseum on April 14. Vagasky, now a freshman
at Otsego High School, will receive a $5,000 check; Gainous will be given a $5,000 check to be used
to support journalism at his high school.
The Newseum, which opened on April 18, 1997, is funded by The Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan,
international foundation dedicated to free press, free speech and free spirit for all people. As The
Freedom Forum's largest public outreach program, the Newseum seeks to educate its visitors about
the importance of First Amendment rights in a free society.
"This is a great birthday gift to ourselves and to scholastic journalism," said Joe Urschel, executive
director and senior vice president of the Newseum. "Nothing could be more appropriate, given our
allegiance to the First Amendment, than to recognize the strength of character these individuals
demonstrated in standing up for student press rights."
The First Amendment rights of student journalists frequently come under attack. More than 500
student journalists and advisers contact the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) in Arlington, Va., each
year for legal help with censorship problems. Since 1974, the SPLC has been the only national
organization devoted exclusively to providing free legal assistance to high school and college
journalists. According to Mark Goodman, executive director of the SPLC, the annual number of
requests for assistance has increased 150 percent in the last 10 years.
Gainous received the Courage in Student Journalism Award for publicly backing his students in
protesting the school superintendent's refusal to air "Shades of Grey," a student-produced television
program that included a panel discussion of same-sex marriage. At a press conference organized by
the student journalists Gainous said, "These students have taught me, really, how to go through an
adverse situation with dignity and style ¼ I fully support them in this." The Montgomery County
School Board sided with Gainous and the students, and the show was broadcast on the county cable
system's education channel in May 1997.
The controversy continues as students challenge the implementation of new school regulations,
drafted after the "Shades of Grey" incident, that establish a lower threshold for censorship than
previous county policy. Because of the student protests, the school board is seeking input on the
(excerpted from FreedomForum.org)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
policy's wording from the Society of Professional Journalists and journalism advisers in the
Montgomery County School System.
Vagasky's Courage in Student Journalism Award resulted from his stand against censorship of the
middle school paper he edited as an eighth grader. In February 1997, Vagasky sought to publish a
story about a shoplifting incident on a school field trip. The story, which included arrest record
information from the county sheriff's department, did not mention the student shoplifter's name.
School officials refused to allow Vagasky to publish the story, although they acknowledged that the
story was accurate. Otsego School Superintendent James Leyndyke said in an interview with the
Kalamazoo Gazette, the local newspaper that covered the censorship story, that his opposition to
the story did not "have anything to do with how well the story was written," but rather that it
reflected poorly on the school district. "I view any piece of information that comes out of the
schools as our opportunity to put our best foot forward. We would not pay ... to show what we do
poorly."
As a result of the dispute, the district shut down the Bulldog Express, and the newspaper's adviser,
Diana Stamfler, was forced to take a job elsewhere after her responsibilities as adviser were taken
away and her hours as a school district employee were reduced.
Vagasky eventually filed suit in federal court. An out-of-court settlement awaiting school board
signature would mandate that no story could be rejected simply because it might portray the school
district in a negative light.
For more information about the award presentation ceremony or to schedule an interview with the
award winners or a Newseum spokesperson call Ann Rauscher at 703/284-3713.
(excerpted from FreedomForum.org)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Story on Gay Teen Life Sparks Controversy
Winter 1996-97 - High School
Vol. XVIII, No. 1 - Page 31
© 1996 Student Press Law Center
'Well written' article results in policy review for student newspaper
COLORADO -- The editor of a student newspaper in Colorado Springs who authored a story about
gay youth has seen a backlash of local and administrative protest, including a push by some to revise
the district's student publications guidelines.
Mary Margaret Nussbaum wrote the story as a feature article for the front page of the Palmer High
School Lever.
"It was an article about difference in high school" she said. "We'd been thinking about it for a while,
and [other staff members] planned to write about it. We'd gotten letters from gay and bi-sexual
students saying there was a need for this [article]." According to Nussbaum, the day after the article
was published, a parent called the school principal and complained about the article.
"Twenty-four hours after distribution, the phones were ringing off the hook" said Lever adviser
Vince Puzick. He said the article was originally not intended to be a straight news story, that it dealt
not with balancing competing views on homosexuality, but with describing what it's like to be a gay
member of the population. Puzick said opponents of the article did not argue its journalistic quality,
and that "critics even agreed it was well written."
The article included references to a Department of Health and Human Services study into gay teen
suicide rates, as well as interviews with two lesbians, one of whom is a Palmer student, and
information about a local support and activity group for gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. At the end
of the article, Nussbaum included phone numbers for the support group and a national
gay/lesbian/bisexual youth hotline.
Puzick said a school board meeting was held on November 6 to decide on the present student
publication guidelines. At the meeting, he said, members of the public were invited to make
suggestions about changing the guidelines. He said board members even brought a tentative revision
of the guidelines to the meeting. The new policy guidelines included a proposed list of inappropriate
topics of discussion, and a requirement that the student paper not express an opinion on
controversial topics that would affect the school's neutrality on those topics, said Puzick. He pointed
out, however, that there were many in the audience at the meeting who supported the article and
had no wish to see the guidelines altered.
In revising the guidelines, the school board may find itself running up against not only public
opinion but state law as well. In 1990, Colorado passed a student free expression law giving student
editors of school-sponsored student publications the ability to determine the news, opinion, and
advertising content of their publications.
© 1996 Student Press Law Center
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
ACTIVITIES
Bruce Doyle, a member of the school board, said the Colorado state law provides more protection
than the 1988 Supreme Court decision Hazlewood v. Kuhlmeier, which allowed more censorship of
school-sponsored student newspapers under the First Amendment.
"These students are pretty well protected by the law" he said.
Doyle said that the school board would decide what changes in the guidelines to make, if any, at a
meeting scheduled for Dec. 11. The student publications guidelines, said Doyle, would then be made
available to the public.
© 1996 Student Press Law Center
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
DECISION
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 3. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools
"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" . . . A school need not
tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission." . . . even though the
government could not censor similar speech outside the school.
We deal first with the question whether Spectrum may appropriately be characterized as a forum for
public expression. The public schools do not possess all of the attributes of streets, parks, and other
traditional public forums that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly,
communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." . . . Hence, school
facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have "by policy or by
practice" opened those facilities "for indiscriminate use by the general public," . . . If the facilities
have instead been reserved for other intended purposes, "communicative or otherwise," then no
public forum has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the
speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community.
The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech—
the question that we addressed in Tinker—is different from the question whether the First
Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech. The former
question addresses educators' ability to silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur
on the school premises. The latter question concerns educators' authority over school-sponsored
publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and
members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These
activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a
traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to
impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.
Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student expression to
assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or
listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that
the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school. Hence, a school may
in its capacity as publisher of a school newspaper or producer of a school play "disassociate itself," .
. . not only from speech that would "substantially interfere with [its] work . . . or impinge upon the
rights of other students," . . . but also from speech that is, for example, ungrammatical, poorly
written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature
audiences. A school must be able to set high standards for the student speech that is disseminated
under its auspices—standards that may be higher than those demanded by some newspaper
publishers or theatrical producers in the "real" world—and may refuse to disseminate student
speech that does not meet those standards. In addition, a school must be able to take into account
the emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining whether to disseminate student
speech on potentially sensitive topics, which might range from the existence of Santa Claus in an
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
elementary school setting to the particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school setting. A
school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be
perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with
"the shared values of a civilized social order," Fraser, supra, at 683, or to associate the school with
any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy. . . .
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. Instead, we hold that
educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and
content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are
reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
. . . It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or
other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so
"directly and sharply implicate[d]," ibid., as to require judicial intervention to protect students'
constitutional rights. . . .
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.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is therefore reversed.
Questions to Consider
1. According to the opinion, do students have the same rights as adults in the "real world?"
2. Is the Spectrum a "public forum?" Why is this an important distinction to make?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
3. What distinction does the Court make between the cases of Tinker v. Des Moines and
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier?
4. Explain, in your own words, why the Court believes educators should be able to exercise greater
control over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive
activities than over student expression that happens to occur on the school premises.
5. What does the Court mean by "legitimate pedagogical concerns?"
6. In your opinion, should a school be able to refuse to sponsor student speech that "might
reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise
inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order,' . . . or to associate the school with
any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy?" Should a school be able
to refuse to allow students to independently express such opinions? Why or why not?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
7. React to this statement: "A school must be able to set high standards for the student speech that
is disseminated under its auspices - standards that may be higher than those demanded by some
newspaper publishers or theatrical producers in the 'real' world—and may refuse to disseminate
student speech that does not meet those standards." Should standards in schools be different
from standards in the "real world?" Why or why not?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
(continued on next page)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 3. Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall and Justice
Blackmun join, wrote the dissenting opinion.
When the young men and women of Hazelwood East High School registered for Journalism II, they
expected a civics lesson. Spectrum, the newspaper they were to publish, ". . . was a . . . forum
established to give students an opportunity to express their views while gaining an appreciation of
their rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. . . .
"If mere incompatibility with the school's pedagogical message were a constitutionally sufficient
justification for the suppression of student speech, school officials could censor each of the students
or student organizations in the foregoing hypotheticals, converting our public schools into "enclaves
of totalitarianism," . . . that "strangle the free mind at its source," . . . The First Amendment permits
no such blanket censorship authority. While the "constitutional rights of students in public school
are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Fraser, supra, at 682,
students in the public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate," Tinker, supra, at 506. Just as the public on the street corner
must, in the interest of fostering "enlightened opinion," . . . tolerate speech that "tempt[s] [the
listener] to throw [the speaker] off the street," . . . public educators must accommodate some student
expression even if it offends them or offers views or values that contradict those the school wishes
to inculcate.
In Tinker, this Court struck the balance. We held that official censorship of student expression—
there the suspension of several students until they removed their armbands protesting the Vietnam
war—is unconstitutional unless the speech "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial
disorder or invasion of the rights of others. . . . "
Official censorship of student speech on the ground that it addresses "potentially sensitive topics" is
. . . impermissible. . . . The case before us aptly illustrates how readily school officials (and courts)
can camouflage viewpoint discrimination as the "mere" protection of students from sensitive topics.
...
. . . Such unthinking contempt for individual rights is intolerable from any state official. It is
particularly insidious from one to whom the public entrusts the task of inculcating in its youth an
appreciation for the cherished democratic liberties that our Constitution guarantees.
Questions to Consider
1. Justice Brennan says that the Spectrum was a "forum" for student expression. From what you
read in the majority opinion, why is this an important distinction?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
2. What does Justice Brennan fear will happen if schools are allowed to censor material that differs
from their pedagogical message?
3. What did the Tinker decision say? What does Justice Brennan think of that decision? Do you
agree or disagree with him? Why?
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
Summary of the Decision
The Supreme Court ruled against the students in a 5-3 decision. Justice White wrote the majority
opinion, concluding that the First Amendment does not prevent school officials from exercising
reasonable authority over the content of school-sponsored publications. Justice Brennan wrote a
dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun.
The majority opinion first considered whether school-sponsored student newspapers are public
forums. If they were public forums, school officials would not be allowed to exercise editorial
control over the content of the paper. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the decision noted
that school facilities are only considered to be public forums when school authorities have “’by
policy or by practice’ opened those facilities ‘for indiscriminate use by the general public.’” If the
facilities are used for other purposes, however, they do not constitute a public forum, and “school
officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students.” The school newspaper in
this case was not open to the unlimited contribution of students, teachers and other members of the
community, but was instead published as part of the curriculum of a journalism class. Therefore, its
primary function was for educational purposes, and the newspaper did not constitute a public
forum.
The Court then addressed the question of whether the First Amendment “requires a school
affirmatively to promote particular student speech.” They concluded that it does not. The First
Amendment rights of students in public schools are not necessarily equal to those of adults outside
of schools. “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its ‘basic
educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the
school.”
The Court decided that the issues involved in this case differ from those the Court ruled on in
Tinker v. Des Moines. In that case, the Court questioned whether school officials could “silence a
student’s personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises.” Hazelwood, however,
forced the Court to consider the extent of school officials’ control over “school-sponsored
publications … and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public
might reasonably perceive to bear the [approval] of the school.” Tinker asked whether schools must
tolerate certain student speech, while this case questioned whether schools must endorse student
speech.
The Supreme Court concluded that the First Amendment does not force schools to endorse student
speech in their school-sponsored publications. School officials have authority and control over
these publications in order to ensure that “participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed
to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their
level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the
school.” Therefore, as long as the editorial control of school officials was “reasonably related to
legitimate pedagogical concerns” such as those mentioned above, it did not offend the First
Amendment.
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
DECISIONS
Justice Brennan disagreed. In his dissenting opinion, Brennan acknowledged that inside public
schools, students’ rights are not necessarily equal to those they enjoy outside of school, but he also
argued that as the Court said in Tinker, “students in the public schools do not ‘shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.’” There must be a
balance struck between the free expression rights of students and the interests of schools officials in
maintaining order and discipline, he declared, and that balance was already struck in Tinker. School
officials must refrain from interfering with student speech unless it causes a “material and substantial
disruption.” Justice Brennan concluded that the Tinker standard should have been applied in this
case, and that the Court should have ruled in favor of the students because “public educators must
accommodate some student expression even if it offends them or offers views or values that
contradict those the schools wishes to inculcate.”
© 2012 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org