Katelyn Strawhand David Chen Chelsea Hedrick

Hazelwood East High School newspaper published viewpoints of three girls who were pregnant (1983) Second article published with vivid accounts of divorce Principal deemed both articles “inappropriate” School taken to court in defense of students’ First Amendment Court ruled in favor of the school

Filed lawsuit against their school and claimed that their First Amendment rights had been violated Sixteen-year-old Sue had it all — good looks, good grades, a loving family and a cute boyfriend. She also had a seven pound baby boy. Each year, according to Claire Berman (Readers Digest, May 1983), close to 1.1 million teenagers — more than one out of every 10 teenage girls — become pregnant. In Missouri alone, 8,208 teens under the age of 18 became pregnant in 1980, according to Reproductive Health Services of St. Louis. That number was 7,363 in 1981.

Principal of Hazelwood East High Decided that the articles were not appropriate for school Pregnant students' identities not adequately disguised The article's sexual content was too mature Divorce article didn't grant full rights to the parent who was mentioned Not enough time to make necessary adjustments to the paper before it was released

(Filed at Federal District Court) Presented to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Continued to Supreme Court Federal District Court ruled in favor of school reasoning: "the small number of pregnant students at Hazelwood East and several identifying characteristics that were disclosed in the article." U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in favor of students: "a part of the school adopted curriculum,"

On January 13, 1988 it voted 5-3 and reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals Principal did in fact have the right to censor any material he found inappropriate Found it was “not unreasonable” for Reynolds to conclude that “frank talk” by students about their sexual histories and use of birth control was “inappropriate in a school-sponsored publication distributed to 14-year-old freshmen.”

White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court: “Educators do not offend 1 st Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored…” (Byron R. White)“A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission…”

“As a working newspaperman who taught part time, I oppose press censorship. I made this clear to the college authorities when given the assignment. I was told I could use my own discretion on editorial restraints, but if the students opposed my requests I could resign as faculty adviser, and the paper could not be published without a faculty adviser.” “..Any controversial story had to present the opposing point of view in the same edition.”

Editor in chief of The Scribbler (Spotswood High) (Jan.31,1988)“AS an editor of a high school newspaper I am enraged by the Supreme Court's Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision.” “If our freedom of press was cut to the point where we would have to submit student publications to administrators for approval of articles to be printed, the term ''student publication'' would not apply anymore. School newspapers would be publications for the students controlled by administrators. What's the use?”

Editor in chief of Paper Lion at Farmingdale High School (Feb. 21,1988) ”..in this case, I don't think the Spectrum editors were willfully contradicting the school's ''mission.'' Fact: Girls at Hazelwood East High School were pregnant. They consented to interviews, provided their names were changed. The Spectrum printed a fact.” “The principal at Hazelwood wants to shelter the younger students because he thinks they are not mature enough. Let them learn from older students. That's what school is for. It's the job of the school newspaper to inform students, not just of the good but also the bad and the ugly.”

(n.d.). Retrieved September 2011, from New York Times: first-amendment-is-it-just-for-adults.html and drawing-line-student-rights-censorship-has-no-place- high.html?src=pm first-amendment-is-it-just-for-adults.html drawing-line-student-rights-censorship-has-no-place- high.html?src=pm Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Retrieved September 19, 2011, from 0_ZS.html 0_ZS.html FindLaw For Legal Proffessionals. (n.d.). Retrieved September 19, 2011, from bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=484&invol=260http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi- bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=484&invol=260 Law, I. C.-K. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 2011, from Oyez Supreme Court Media: /1987/1987_86_836http:// 1989/1987/1987_86_836

1. What was the name of the school newspaper? 2. True or False: The case first went to a local Missouri Court. 3. True or False: The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school. 4. Give 2-3 reasons why the principal decided to remove pages from the student publication. 5. What was the name of the principal?