Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmeier Case Study

Kuhlmeier. In this Supreme Court case, Spectrum, the East Hazelwood High school newspaper was under scrutiny of whether or not it could constitutionally be censored. This case was different from the Romano v. Harrington case in that Spectrum was part of the course curriculum. It was a part of the Journalism II class, and was largely sponsored by the school. Crow’s Nest, on the other hand, was extracurricular and gave no compensation to the students whatsoever. Harrington, who represented the school, argued that the differences were insubstantial. Romano, on the other hand, argued that the differences between the two cases were integral to deciding this

Susan, a young teenager, wanted to attend a better equipped school closer to her family home. This wish, combined with her father’s civil rights involvement, contributed to her family’s decision to file a court case to gain access to an all white school to which she had originally been denied access. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision regarding Clark versus Board of Directors was the first successful school desegregation case in the United States.

Whether school board terminating the teacher violated the First Amendment right for publishing a letter in the newspaper while expressing one’s view as a concern citizen (Findlaw.com).

Whereas, certain disputes exist concerning G’onna Jones’ educational program while a student in the District, which claims are described in the case styled G’onna J. b/n/f Nikki Anne R. v. Beaumont Independent School District, 077-SE-1115 (“Claim”);

Narrator: Walter Barnette sued the school board in district court and won an injunction against enforcement of the rule

My views are a reflection of the majority opinion on this case because I felt that the censorship of the newspaper pages didn't necessarily violate student rights under the First Amendment. The majority opinion stated that the principle acted responsibly being that the rights of the students in the articles were in question. They didn'tbelieve that the Tinker standard even applied to this case at all since in the Tinker case, it was personal expression by students instead of what was in a school newspaper. The dissenting opinion felt that the Tinker standard did apply to this case as they said that even though the articles were from the school's

Reason Filed: Students at Hazelwood East High School had two articles omitted from a school sponsored student newspaper by the principal. The

Issue: “Does the decision of a principal to prohibit the publishing of certain articles, which he deems inappropriate, in the school newspaper violate the student journalists' First Amendment right of freedom of speech?”

A more recent case, J. S v. Bethlehem Area School (2000), is more relevant to the issues today. This court case involves a student who was expelled from the school for creating a website that included derogatory and threatening comments about members of the school’s administration. The Supreme Court ruled that the school’s actions were deemed justified due to evidence proving an obvious disruption of the school environment. In the courts closing arguments the following is stated, “Regrettably, in this day and age where school violence is becoming more commonplace, school officials are justified in taking very seriously threats against faculty and other students.”(Herbeck, 2010)

Reynolds, upon seeing this immediately withheld the issue. Cathy Kulhmeier and two other students soon took the incident to court. The case was resolved by the Rehnquist court in the years 1987-1988. The court gave a 5 to 3 vote in favor of the school. The majority opinion, given by judge White, stated that the school must retain the authority to not sponsor the newspaper in order to prevent the promotion of drug use and underage sex, which is considered inappropriate for a civilized setting, This was supported by Judges White, Stevens, O’Connor, and Scalia. The dissenting opinion, given by Brennan, accuses the majority of not seeing the difference between student-initiated and school-sponsored speech, they believe the school is able to strike this down in an act of “protection” of other students, this was backed by Marshall and Blackmun. This case comes in conflict with the first amendment’s “freedom of speech” due to the censorship of the newspaper. The main question is “was the school neglecting the students’ first amendment rights?”. Many journalist groups and media agencies, such as “The Seattle Times”, have clearly voiced support for the students, others have questioned if the first amendment

In this case, students presented two inappropriate articles in the school’s newspaper. Principal Reynolds removed the articles and the newspaper was published without them. This led Cathy Kuhlmeier and two former students to fight against it through the courts. Once again, the Supreme court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District stating, "Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns'" (oyez.org). Alike Morse v Frederick, Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier had a tighter policy in regard to the situations presented in the cases. As opposed to the pervasive restrictions in the new policy from

When supreme court was deciding on the case of Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) there were two previous cases that were cited which where Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). In the supreme court case between the Des Moines school district and a student by the name of Mary Tinker, both the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment were utilized as a means to relieve a dispute of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech. Three students that were attending a public school in Des Moines wore black armbands around their biceps as a peaceful protest against the Vietnam war. The students were suspended from school and through the appeals process, this case

I tended to favor a loose interpretation of the laws for this case. Even though everyone is to allow to express their opinions, the restrictions were necessary. These restrictions were created to avoid mayhem within the student body which can lead to even more serious trouble.I honestly think the school was in no wrong because the school was doing like any other school would do by protecting their student’s rights. The school was just simply representing the interest of the majority. Newspaper are a way the students could have used to express their feelings

He pointed out that the case incorporated somewhat number of understudies who declined to conform to the headings of school powers, and battled that allowing this behavior would adversely influence schools and on the country all things considered. Mary Beth Tinker definitely transformed into a chaperon and worked with the Veterans Administration. She later made that it was "an advantage to work with our veterans who had yielded a bit of their lives.… I work with a huge amount of paraplegics and quadriplegics, and some of them were hurt in the Vietnam War… So I don't have any qualms about it by any stretch of the creative energy. I'm happy to have been a bit of anything that stopped the war." The Supreme Court has overseen other school cases since Tinker. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986, the Court held that an auxiliary school understudy did not have the specifically under the First Amendment to use revolting tongue and sexual delineations in a talk at a school gathering. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988, the Court chose that school powers could coordinate the substance of the understudy day by day paper in any sensible way. The critical had deleted understudy articles about high schooler pregnancy and about the impact of parental partition on understudies at the school. In both Fraser and Kuhlmeier, the Court complemented that understudies in government supported schools don't for the most part have the same

A group of students had gathered in Des Moines to celebrate the truce of the Vietnam War. The children had chosen to wear black armbands and fast as well. However, the principals of the schools in Des Moines created a policy which stated that if the bands were not removed by the student, that student would then be suspended. After a few kids were sent home by the administration, the students had ended up suing the school district for not allowing them to express their “voices”. The act of the school administration had violated the First Amendment, which states that Congress may not prohibit “free speech”.