Censorship of Student Censorship of Student PublicationsPublications

William Allan Kritsonis, William Allan Kritsonis, PhDPhD

Students’ RightsStudents’ RightsTinker v. Des Moines Independent Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

Community School DistrictCommunity School DistrictThe U.S. Supreme Court decision in The U.S. Supreme Court decision in

Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) was the Community School District (1969) was the standard governing censorship of student standard governing censorship of student publications for almost 20 years.publications for almost 20 years.

Tinker V. Des Moines Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School Independent Community School

District Con’t.District Con’t. It remains the controlling decision in some It remains the controlling decision in some

instances. Tinker established that a instances. Tinker established that a student may express personal opinions, student may express personal opinions, “even on controversial subjects,” unless “even on controversial subjects,” unless the student’s conduct “materially disrupts the student’s conduct “materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder class work or involves substantial disorder or invasions of the rights of others”.or invasions of the rights of others”.

Tinker CaseTinker Case Involved several public school students who Involved several public school students who

wore armband in school signifying their wore armband in school signifying their opposition to the war in Vietnam.opposition to the war in Vietnam.

School officials learned of this and developed a School officials learned of this and developed a rule that any student who wore an armband to rule that any student who wore an armband to school would be asked to remove it .school would be asked to remove it .

If they refused to comply, they would be If they refused to comply, they would be suspended until the armband was removed.suspended until the armband was removed.

The rule only applied to secondary students.The rule only applied to secondary students.

Tinker Case Con’t.Tinker Case Con’t. When elementary students wore their armbands When elementary students wore their armbands

to school despite the rule they weren’t to school despite the rule they weren’t suspended.suspended.

Instead, the teachers used the opportunity to talk Instead, the teachers used the opportunity to talk about dissent in a democratic society.about dissent in a democratic society.

The older students, who were sincere in their The older students, who were sincere in their beliefs were suspended with the defied the rule. beliefs were suspended with the defied the rule.

Through their parents, they sued the district Through their parents, they sued the district claiming the regulation and its enforcement claiming the regulation and its enforcement infringed their constitutional right of free speech. infringed their constitutional right of free speech.

They asked the Supreme Court to grant freedom They asked the Supreme Court to grant freedom of expression rights to public school students.of expression rights to public school students.

Hazelwood School District V. Hazelwood School District V. Kulhmeier (1988)Kulhmeier (1988)

This case looked more specifically at student This case looked more specifically at student publications and publications and allowed schoolallowed school off icials off icials greater opportunity to censorgreater opportunity to censor than Tinker. than Tinker. The student newspaper in this case was part of The student newspaper in this case was part of a high school journalism class. As such, the a high school journalism class. As such, the Court decided it was sponsored by the school Court decided it was sponsored by the school and legitimately subject to school control over its and legitimately subject to school control over its content and style, as long as that control served content and style, as long as that control served a valid educational purpose.a valid educational purpose.

Hazelwood School District V. Hazelwood School District V. Kulhmeier Con’t.Kulhmeier Con’t.

Under Hazelwood, a publication would Under Hazelwood, a publication would likely be considered school-sponsored if it likely be considered school-sponsored if it is supervised by a faculty member, if it is supervised by a faculty member, if it exists to teach either the students who exists to teach either the students who work on it or those who read it, or if it uses work on it or those who read it, or if it uses the school’s resources. the school’s resources.

The Court’s InvolvementThe Court’s Involvement The Court distinguished between student The Court distinguished between student

publications that serve an educational purpose publications that serve an educational purpose and those that exist as forums for student and those that exist as forums for student expression. Even when a publication is expression. Even when a publication is sponsored by the school, officials cannot censor sponsored by the school, officials cannot censor its content if it is, “by policy or by practice,” an its content if it is, “by policy or by practice,” an open forum for expression.open forum for expression.

Likewise, the content of extracurricular and Likewise, the content of extracurricular and underground newspapers may be censored only underground newspapers may be censored only under the Tinker standard, even if the under the Tinker standard, even if the publication involves the use of school resources.publication involves the use of school resources.

The Court’s Con’t.The Court’s Con’t. Courts have generally recognized that student Courts have generally recognized that student

publications may be censored if there is material publications may be censored if there is material that is obscene as to minors or the is libelous. that is obscene as to minors or the is libelous. Vulgar or foul language is not necessarily Vulgar or foul language is not necessarily subject to censorship; although in a 1986 subject to censorship; although in a 1986 decision, Bethel V. Fraser, the Supreme Court decision, Bethel V. Fraser, the Supreme Court upheld the punishment of a student who gave a upheld the punishment of a student who gave a lewd speech before an assembly of 14-year-old lewd speech before an assembly of 14-year-old students. According to Censorship and students. According to Censorship and Selection, by Henry Reichman, however, Selection, by Henry Reichman, however, “Whether the Supreme Court will apply Fraser to “Whether the Supreme Court will apply Fraser to student publications remains unclear”.student publications remains unclear”.

ReferencesReferences

The Educator’s Guide to Texas School The Educator’s Guide to Texas School Law. Jim Walsh, Frank Kemerer, and Law. Jim Walsh, Frank Kemerer, and Laurie Maniotis, Sixth Edition.Laurie Maniotis, Sixth Edition.

Rethinking Schools OnlineRethinking Schools Online Volume 13, No. 4 , Summer 1999> Volume 13, No. 4 , Summer 1999>

Students: Know Your Rights.Students: Know Your Rights. www.rethinkingschools.orgwww.rethinkingschools.org