The Supreme Court on ‘Hazelwood’ Essay Example for Free

The controlling Court on Hazelwood moveBoth judges and direct officials have been thinking about and dealing with the nature of school-age childs rights to free computer address through the 1970s and 1980s, since Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School Dist., the 1969 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ratiocination that acknowledged student rights. Stating that students do not shed their constitutive(a) rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate (393 U.S. at 506), the Court upheld the right of three Des Moines high school students to wear black armbands as a peaceful symbol of opposition to the Vietnam war. . . .The Courts ruling and reasoning subsequently were applied to student contemplation other than the wearing of armbands, from theater productions to art shows, from school assemblies to student publications. . . . The Supreme Court, balancing students constitutional freedoms and administrators traditional responsibilities, said in Tinker that school officials could not stop hu man face simply because they disliked it. . . . Student journalists efforts to gain press freedom experienced a major setback on January 13, 1988, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier that school administrators could censor a school-sponsored newspaper. Just as Tinker had started an era of expanded student rights, so Hazelwood signals a departure that could lead toward more restriction of students expression.The Hazelwood principal believed that the stories he censoredaccounts of unnamed, pregnant students and a report on the collision of parental divorce on studentswere unfair and inappropriate for teenagers. He was concerned that the anonymous students could be identified, that the school would appear to be condoning teenage pregnancy, and that divorced parents criticized should be consulted prior to publication. . . . Instead of ruling narrowly on student newspapers, the Court in Hazelwood gave discretion to school officials to1. Serve as pu blisher. . . . 2. Censor, if there is a reasonable educational justification, any expression that does not properly reflect the schools educational mission. The Court called it reasonable to censor a newspaper story that school officials believe is not fair, expression that deals with sensitive topics, and content that is ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or discrepant for immature audiences.3. Use this power to control expression through any school-sponsored activity. Legal distinctions between class-produced and extra-curricular publications disappeared. line of business production, art shows, debates, and pep rallies are just some of the schoolsponsored activities now under tighter control. . . .4. Review student expression in advance, even when no guidelines define what will or will not be censored. composition of the United States, Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free dress thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to supplicant the Government for a redress of grievances.