The Impact of Hazelwood in High Schools, 26 Years Later

By Jenna Spoont

         In just a week, a high school junior from Pennsylvania will share her story about the battle with her district’s school board over the use of a word that her student newspaper staff considers a “racial slur.”[i]

          Gillian McGoldrick, editor-in-chief of Neshaminy High School’s Playwickian, and the paper’s student editorial board, wrote a piece in the student newspaper back in November 2013 indicating that they were going to stop using the word “Redskins”, the school’s nickname and mascot, in their student publication. The administration disagreed with the students’ decision and a conflict regarding the school’s publications policy ensued. Recently, the school board removed McGoldrick from her position for one month, suspended the newspaper’s adviser for two days without pay, and deducted $1,200 from the student newspaper’s budget.[ii]

           The Washington Post jumped on board with the Playwickian editors’ decision and banned the “insulting” word in the Washington Post’s opinion section.[iii] Although McGoldrick’s story has reached the national spotlight, a similar tale has been told before, in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Supreme Court decision.

           In this case, the Court held “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.”[iv] The school principal at Hazelwood East High School censored two pages of the six-page student paper because of the subject of the articles—pregnancy and divorce.

          According to data from the Student Press Law Center (SPLC), the organization received 12 percent more calls for help from student journalists and advisers between 1988 and 1989 than in previous years.[v] The SPLC, a non-profit organization that advocates for the First Amendment rights of student journalists, was founded in 1974. The number of calls to the Center increased over 170 percent from 1989 to 1990. The SPLC reported, “almost all student journalists and advisers said that they attributed the censorship at least in part to the Hazelwood decision.”[vi]

           In response to calls for assistance, the SPLC launched a campaign in 2012 called “Cure Hazelwood” to push for states to establish anti-Hazelwood laws that support “public forum” (non subject to censorship) student publications.[vii] California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas passed laws that counteract the Hazelwood decision in their respective states.[viii]

         Pennsylvania established certain regulations in their educational Code of Conduct (effective in 2006) that address student censorship issues. The actions of Neshaminy School District’s board likely violates the Code, according to Robert Hankes, the president of the Pennsylvania School Press Association.[ix] Under the Pennsylvania Code, “School officials shall supervise student newspapers published with school equipment, remove obscene or libelous material and edit other material that would cause a substantial disruption or interference with school activities.”[x]

            The Pennsylvania Code adheres to the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) Supreme Court decision that gave students the freedom of expression on school grounds as long as the expression does not involve a “substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”[xi] In Tinker, two high school students and one junior high school student were suspended from school for wearing black armbands that signified a protest of the Vietnam War. The Court decided that armbands are a form of “pure speech” and do not disrupt conduct on school grounds.

            The 5-3 Hazelwood decision came as a shock to student journalists and First Amendment advocacy organizations. Associate Justice William J. Brennan wrote in his dissenting Hazelwood opinion that the decision “chills student speech” because school officials can censor what they consider “sensitive.” Brennan explains, “[Moreover, the] State’s prerogative to dissolve the student newspaper entirely (or to limit its subject matter) no more entitles it to dictate which viewpoints students may express on its pages, than the State’s prerogative to close down the schoolhouse entitles it to prohibit the nondisruptive expression of antiwar sentiment within its gates.”[xii]

          The Hazelwood decision also applies to other student organizations, not solely publications. Any student involved in theatre could have his or her freedom of expression taken away because the school desires “standards that may be higher than those demanded by some newspaper publishers or theatrical producers in the ‘real’ world.”[xiii]

         Student journalists and actors do participate in the “real” world—who else other than students can have the inside scoop of the hallways in their high school or perform live productions for their peers? Students make up the “real” world because clearly, as we see in the Neshaminy situation, students impact the “real” world.

         The SPLC, Journalism Education Association, and Student Press Rights Commission sent an open letter in September encouraging the student editors of the Playwickian “to explore their legal options and urge the State of Pennsylvania to investigate whether the Neshaminy School Board members should be removed.”[xiv]

        McGoldrick will present at the 2014 Journalism Education Association/National Scholastic Press Association Fall National High School Journalism Convention in Washington, D.C., Nov. 6-9. The program offers over 250 sessions for the attendees to learn about First Amendment law, ethics, writing, editing, broadcasting, and more. Over 5,000 student journalists and advisers are expected to attend the convention.

Jenna Spoont is a writer for the GW PLSA Blog. She was a staff writer at the Student Press Law Center from May 2014 - August 2014

---

[i] Schiffbauer, Anna. "Playwickian Adviser, Student Editor Suspended for Defying Administrative Orders with Redskins Ban." Student Press Law Center. Student Press Law Center, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.splc.org/article/2014/09/playwickian-adviser-student-editor-suspended-for-redskins-ban>.

[ii] Reimold, Dan. "Redskins, Revenge, Censorship: The Ridiculous Mascot Fight at a Pennsylvania High School." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 09 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-reimold/redskins-revenge-censorsh_b_5958440.html>.

[iii] Editorial Board. "Washington Post Editorials Will No Longer Use 'Redskins' for the Local NFL Team." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 22 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.

[iv] Lockhart, William B., Yale Kamisar, and Jesse H. Choper. Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, Questions. 11th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Pub., 1980. 1044. Print.

[v] "The Hazelwood Decision and Student Press | Scholastic.com." Scholastic Teachers. Student Press Law Center, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/hazelwood-decision-and-student-press>.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] "SPLC." Cure Hazelwood. Student Press Law Center, 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.splc.org/section/cure-hazelwood>.

[viii] "The Hazelwood Decision and Student Press | Scholastic.com." Scholastic Teachers. Student Press Law Center, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/hazelwood-decision-and-student-press>.

[ix] Spoont, Jenna. "Neshaminy School Board Passes New Policies Limiting Student Publications and School-related Social Media Rights." Student Press Law Center. Student Press Law Center, 27 June 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.splc.org/article/2014/06/neshaminy-school-board-passes-new-policies>.

[x] Students and Student Services, § 12 (2006). Print. The Pennsylvania Code

[xi] [xi] Lockhart, William B., Yale Kamisar, and Jesse H. Choper. Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, Questions. 11th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Pub., 1980. 1039. Print.

[xii] Ibid., 1046.

[xiii] Ibid., 1044.

[xiv] "SPLC, JEA-SPRC Condemn Neshaminy School District For Punishing Newspaper Editor, Adviser in Ongoing Fight Over." "Redskins" Name. SPLC, JEA-SPRC, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.splc.org/article/2014/09/splc-jea-sprc-condemn-neshasminy-school-district>.

Constitutionality of Voter ID Laws

By Caitlin Barbas


             A recent Supreme Court decision to block the implementation of Wisconsin’s new Voter ID law has reignited debates over the constitutionality of Voter identification laws. Often seen as discriminatory and burdensome, these laws are aimed at preventing fraudulent voting activity. In order to analyze the current stance of voter ID laws as well as the legality of these laws, this paper will first examine the US Supreme Court’s decision on Wisconsin, the Federal Court overturn of the Texas Voter ID law, and the arguments in favor and against these laws. This examination will conclude with an analysis of possible the future outlooks and possible solutions for voter identification methods.

          The Supreme Court’s released no explanation of their decision regarding the Wisconsin Voter ID Law, raising questions as to whether the court found the law unconstitutional or if the timing of the implementation led to the block. In the explanation of his dissenting position, Justice Alito explained the Court’s concern over absentee ballots, which had been distributed prior to the decision to implement the Identification laws, and, therefore, did not include identification requirements on the instructions for voting.[1] Furthermore, critics of the law voiced concern that the short time-span between implementation of the law and the November elections would prevent large numbers of voters from obtaining identification before voting commences.[2] This strong emphasis on timing coupled with the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold stricter laws regarding Ohio and North Carolina voter ID policies has created confusion over the reason for the block of implementation. Did the Supreme Court find the laws unconstitutional or was the decision solely based on the time constraint?

         While the Wisconsin ruling allowed for questioning of the judicial intent, the Texas Voter ID law overturn clearly demonstrated the federal judge’s intent. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the Southern District Court ruled that the law creates an “unconstitutional poll tax”[3] and has an “impermissibly discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans.”[4] Texas has vowed to appeal the ruling on the grounds that the law would be considered constitutional under a Supreme Court decision in June which overturned portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the case Shelby County v. Holder.[5]

            Voter ID laws are often viewed as a political issue. Typically Republicans are supportive of the establishment of a law requiring identification to be presented when voting, while democrats are opposed to it.[6] The Wisconsin and Texas cases have been applauded by critics of Voter ID laws, who argue the laws discriminate against the elderly, the poor, and minorities, groups which are often Democrat supporters.[7] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the most prominent critics, states, “Voter ID laws have the potential to deny the right to vote to thousands of registered…. Many of these Americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to secure a government-issued photo ID.”[8] Proponents argue that requirements to produce government issued identification will combat voter fraud.

             As the Supreme Court and Federal Courts take action in determining the constitutionality of Voter ID laws in various states, the future of these laws becomes increasingly unclear. While protection from fraudulent activity is necessary for an authentic ballot count, the forms of identification accepted by state governments should be reformed. State governments must provide clear information as to the identification process required, both for voting at the polls and voting through absentee ballots. States should allow a wider range of identification, therefore, creating easier access for voting and minimizing the burden[9] placed upon voters. Both proponents and critics of Voter ID laws must make compromises in order to ensure the voting process is effectively functioning and fair to all voters.

References 

[1] Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court Blocks Wisconsin Voter ID Law." The Washington Post. N.p., 9 Oct.
2014. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law/2014/10/09/e52af8fe-4ff4-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html>.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Kendall, Brent. "Voter Identification Laws Hit Roadblock in Wisconsin and Texas." The Wall Street Journal. N.p.,
10 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law-for-midterm-elections-1412905573>.
[4] Whitcomb, Dan. "Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Law Requiring Voter ID at Polls." Reuters. N.p., 9 Oct. 2014.
Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-usa-texas-voterid-idUSKCN0HZ04D20141010>.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Liptak, Adam. "Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws in Wisconsin and Texas." The New York Times. N.p., 9 Oct.
2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0>
[8] "Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 21 July 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.
<https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet>.
[9] Liptak, Adam. "Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws in Wisconsin and Texas." The New York Times. N.p., 9 Oct. 2014.
Web. 10 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0>.