Hazelmeier Case Study

In this text, the case hinges on whether the students created a disturbance. There was a fear that they might create one, but since they never did, the court held that their self-expression was protected.

[A student] may express his [or her] opinions, even on controversial subjects…if he [or she] does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason – whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior – materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional

Maria A. Cardona, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M v. State of Florida.

Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of

In this case, the Principal of Hazelwood east high, Principal Reynolds, reviewed the school paper before it was published. He thought two articles were inappropriate for school, one on some of the student’s pregnancies and experiences while pregnant, and one person’s experiences through her parent’s divorce. ("Facts and Case Summary: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier."1 ) Even though all of the names were changed, the principal was worried that the students may be identified. Also, the father in the divorce article was not reached for comment, so the article had not been unbiased, as should be expected in a newspaper.("Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier"1) The principal removed these articles, causing the paper to miss a

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all students will have the opportunity to work much harder and it will be easier for the students to retain the information. This will improve their grades significantly. All we are asking is just to cut the workload just a little bit. If this were to happen students will have better health and will be ready

The act of the School District in suspending the students clearly showed a serious impediment of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. All students who petitioned were quiet and passive, neither disrupting nor interfering with school activities and the rights of other students—which makes their symbolic speech protected under the Constitution. What the students were protesting against accounts for their expression of opinion, which is again protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Since this case, the Supreme Court has issued decisions that have given school administrators more power to regulate student conduct. Nevertheless, the Tinker decision changed the way students seek to exercise their First Amendment rights

I, Zuleisha Ame Yniguez, write this opinion to dissent with the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

It is important to take into account this limitation because parents, administrators, and students should be fully aware of any reduction of rights that occur when a student steps foot on a public school campus. The

The 1st Amendment protected the principal because it says that he can delete a the school newspaper non-curriculum related.Especially when Kuhlmeier said the principal violated the 1st amendment which is the freedom of the press and speech. The newspaper was not a public forum so the school was able to delete it. Since teen pregnancy and divorce is not a school curriculum they can take it down. The principal das to decide what’s best for the school no just Kuhlmeier

Students don't have the same First Amendment rights they have in the public compared to school. Four major cases were brought to the Supreme Court concerning students' First Amendment, Tinker , Fraser, Hazelwood, and Morse. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Only one ruled in favor of the student that being the first one, Tinker which set the stage for the rest. Students' First Amendment rights have changed since Tinker expanded upon students' right to being constricted because

In the case of Beth, she was claimed guilty of breaking the rulebook as her action was a violation of ‘respect towards other students’. The school is allowed to enforce their rules, however, it may not restrict peaceful protest.

Hazelwood East High School’s newspaper, The Spectrum, was sent to the Principal to be proofread. The journalism II class had constructed two articles that consisted of stories from teen pregnant girls and the other about a student’s parent’s divorce. This was planned to be released on May 13th, 1983. The principal prohibited those pages from being published because he thought it was too inappropriate for school. He feared that the girls’ names would be revealed even though they were changed. He also thought that the father should be informed on the article and should be given the option on stating an argument. It was also too late for the pages to be edited so he cut them out of the newspaper all together. The class thought that their principal

Separate from any concerns over bias, as the article had been written as a clear editorial, I was completely unsure of whether it was appropriate to broadcast opinions that could cause problems for other people. However, I couldn’t stop thinking that was wrong. Even if the entire system had been disrupted, even a system as small as school spirit and sports games, it went against our duty to better the world when we hid behind the majority opinion. It’s our responsibility to keep challenging, and pointing out, and acting against what was broken in the hope that it would become better. We kept publishing those controversial articles, every issue without fail, in an endeavor to make those around us consider what we have to gain when we do not resign ourselves to

The student felt that this was unfair and that it did not follow the first amendment rights to freedom of expression and association, so he pushed back and challenged the school by taking the situation to court (Meyer, 2009).