Journalism teachers frequently deal with First Amendment issues. Some are experts on the topic; others don’t know their own rights much less those of their students. On June 13, the participants of the ASNE Institute were held spellbound as they listened to Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, share his expertise on matters of the law.

Goodman has been the executive director of the Center since 1985. The organization, a nonprofit, non-partisan corporation since 1974, serves as an advocate for student free press rights, providing information, advice and legal assistance to students and educators across the country.

Goodman explained that the well-known 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. the Des Moines Community School District set the first standard for student presses. The “Tinker Standard” allowed school officials to censor student speech only in cases of unlawful speech or speech that would physically disrupt the educational process. Because this ruling made it very difficult for student speech to be suppressed, Goodman referred to the years following the Tinker ruling as “the golden era of scholastic press.”

In 1988, however, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly reduced the level of First Amendment protection provided to student media with the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir decision in which the court distinguished between the armbands (independent speech) of the Tinker case and the written (school sponsored speech) of the Hazelwood case. The Hazelwood decision allows for censorship of speech “reasonably related to pedagogical concerns,” wording that Goodman called “vague at best.”

Because Hazelwood distinguished between school sponsored and independent speech, Goodman urged newspaper advisers to adopt policies within their district that designate their publication as a public forum for students.

When asked if ceasing the printing of a newspaper or transferring the adviser responsibility to another faculty member were ways for administrators to get around censorship controversies, Goodman referred to these practices as “indirect censorship” and insisted that each is prohibited under both the Tinker and Hazelwood standards.

This struck a chord for one ASNE participant, a first year teacher who said that she recently had her role as newspaper adviser taken away after a series of censorship confrontations with her principal. According to Goodman, this participant’s district has a very specific publications policy that prohibits prior review by administrators and has had the policy in place for over 10 years.

In a private discussion following the presentation, the teacher reported to Goodman that her principal told her from the beginning that she would be required to submit the student newspaper for prior review. The first confrontation arose over one line in an editorial, which referred to students “feeling like the administration was distant.” The adviser fought to only revamp the line rather than have it cut. The principal agreed. Several censorship debates followed, and that first issue was the only issue allowed to go to press. The adviser was eventually told that she would not be teaching journalism next year because the principal was tired of fighting with her.

While personal circumstances currently prevent the teacher from fighting the decision directly, Goodman was able to suggest several avenues that students might be able to take.

The Florida teacher left the conversation with a new respect for the SPLC.

“It’s good to know that they’re there if you need them and I’m impressed with how attentive they are. I thought, ‘Wow, this is the director, and he was willing to sit down with me and talk about my situation.’ It’s encouraging to know that they’ll do that for anyone for free, even with so many schools out there. It gives students somewhere they can go. I find that comforting.”