Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Everyone in America, from adults to students have freedom of speech. This freedom is provided by the first amendment. In the case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, students fights for the freedom of speech in their school newspaper. One side of the case was three students who thought their free speech was violated and the other side was the principal defending the school. After the court's decision, this case had a big impact on the school and many other people. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier talks about students not giving up their freedom of speech in a school setting.
Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri is where the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier all started. This cases was argued on October 13, 1987. The students defending
…show more content…
their freedom of speech were Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett. All three girls were enrolled in the schools Journalism II class and writers for their school newspaper called The Spectrum. The girls wrote articles about divorce and teen pregnancy. These articles were seen to be to inappropriate by the school's principal, Robert E. Reynolds. Reynolds saw these articles a violation of privacy for the student's and family’s written about in the newspaper. The students mentioned in the articles attended Hazelwood East High School at the time and their names were changed in the articles to ensure privacy. Reynolds original plan was for the students to revise their articles so they could be published. The issue of this plan was that this paper was the last one to be published for the year so Reynolds was afraid that the revisions would take to long and that the paper would not be able to be published. The students felt like they could have revised their papers in time so this angered them. The lawyer for Cathy Kuhlmeier and her two friends was Leslie D.
Edwards. He helped them make a case against the Hazelwood School district. The girls wanted justice for their articles being taken out of the newspaper and “they also asked to be paid money for the harm the principal had caused them”(Fuller 24). The girls wrote about divorce and teen pregnancy in their articles. Their intention in these articles was to help students whose parents were going through a divorce or students dealing with teen pregnancy. They argued that their free speech was violated when the principal, Robert Reynolds, took their articles out of that issue of their school newspaper. Since Cathy Kuhlmeier and her two friends who wrote the article changed the names of the people mentioned, they did not see any problem in publishing it because the privacy of the people were protected. The Journalism teacher at the time who advised the Spectrum, approved the articles the students wrote but left the school before the issue of the paper was published. The approvement of the articles, the changing of the names, and their good intentions all formed the students side of the case. The lawyer for the school district was Robert P. Baine Jr.. He helped the side of the school district make points that the school had the right to take these articles out.After the prior advisor left, a new one came, his name was Howard Emerson. Emerson “...followed the procedures of the recently departed advisor, giving the …show more content…
principal, Robert Reynolds, the opportunity to review the paper prior to publication”(“Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier(1988) Censorship Student Press Rights.” n.p.). This helped Robert Baine make the point that Reynold had the right to look at the paper before it got published. The articles mentioned mature topics such as birth control and sex. Reynolds thought as these topics as inappropriate and did not want the ninth grade students to read about it. In the article about divorce, the girl mentioned that her father's actions caused her parents to divorce and Reynolds thought that the girl's father should be informed about the article. While Reynolds was concerned about the students mentioned, he was more concerned about the families mentioned. The school district took out the articles from the paper because of the content of them and the things they discussed. The school argued that “the paper was sponsored by the school and as such, the school had a legitimate interest in preventing the publication of the articles that it deemed innappropriate…”(“Facts and Case Summary-Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.” n.p.). All of these facts and reasoning helped shape each side of the case. This case was first taken to the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Kuhlmeier side lost at this court and appealed the decision to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court reversed the ruling, saying that the students rights had been violated. The school district then appealed to the Supreme Court. When the case got to the Supreme Court, there was only eight chief justices because one retired. Since there was only 8 justices, there was fear on both sides of a four to four tie. The school district side was especially scared of this because “if a higher court splits evenly, the decision of the lower court stands”(Hudson Jr. n.p.). If that happened then the Hazelwood side would lose since they lost at the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier was decided on January 13, 1988. The ruling was a 5-3 vote that the students First Amendment rights were not violated. It was decided that “since the school publications are school funded, administrators are in a sense, publishers with editorial rights to extinguish expression that they feel to be inappropriate”(Nappen 97). This Supreme Court ruling reversed the ruling of the Eighth Circuit. The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case decision was influenced by many cases, but the most important on e was Tinker v. Des Moines. The case of Tinker v. Des Moines was argued on November 12, 1968 and decided on February 24, 1969. The decision of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier was influenced by the ruling of this case. In this case students were suspended for protesting against the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands. Both of these cases involved the constitutional rights of students. In this case, “...the Supreme Court ruled that school officials could only limit student free expression when they could demonstrate that the expression in question would cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities or an invasion of the rights of others”(“The Hazelwood Decision and Student Press.” n.p.). This case ruling helped both sides make their case. This gave the Kuhlmeier side hope because those students won their case. For the school district side they realized that “since the Tinker decision, the court had decided two important cases recognizing the authority of public school officials to control what is taught in public schools”(Fuller 51). The lawyers of principal Robert Reynolds were confident that this case would help them win, and they were correct. While these cases both deal with the idea of free speech, where they differ is that in Tinker v. Des Moines it talks about the toleration of specific student free speech actions while in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier it talked about whether the students free speech should be supported. Despite this difference, these cases work in correlation with each other in the sense that they both fight for rights of students in a school setting. The students in both of these cases feel they have lost their freedom of speech and freedom of expression in school. Hazelwood v.
Kuhlmeier had a big impact on everyone. This case changed the ways some schools did things. The ruling of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier allowed all matters related to school sponsored speech activities in the hands of the school. For example, some places now have an increased review of the articles prior to publication, allowing changes things that are unacceptable or inappropriate. The schools that do this do it to ensure an occurrence like Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier does not happen again. While this had an impact on schools, it also had a big impact on students. This case, along with other student rights cases, inspires students to speak out for what they think is wrong or what should be done differently. Three other people that were impacted by this case were the three girls, Kuhlmeier, Smart, and Tippett, who fought for their free speech rights. The girls were just trying to help people going through hard times, like divorce and teen pregnancy and were heartbroken that they never had the chance. The things that made the students most upset was that they worked really hard on their articles and they thought they may have been able to fix them. Years after the case ended Cathy Kuhlmeier, now Cathy Cowan, said “I think we need to give students room to grow. Students need to be given the chance to do in-depth stories-more than just stories about the soccer game or who was named prom queen”(Kuhlmeier n.p.). The girls were happy they stood up for what they believed in and
hope they inspired someone. They still believed that the ruling was unjust. In conclusion, the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier discussed free speech of students in a school setting. Each side of the case, the student side and the school district side, was affected by the ruling in favor of the school district. The case of Tinker v. Des Moines helped shape the court's decision. The three girls who brought this case to court showed students that their rights should not be violated in a school setting. The case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier brought attention to student rights in a school setting and greatly impacted the way school free speech is seen today.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
Doe case, Taking place in Texas in the year 2000, ended with a five to four verdict (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The decision was in support of Doe, a Mormon family and a Catholic family that contested the school’s support of prayer at football games. The result of this case restricted the first amendment freedom of religion. The “wall” between religion and government that the Establishment Clause creates was present in this case (Cornell University Law School). The end of this case led to a strong divide between public schools and students’ religious practices. This case caused social changes to occur that affected public schools across America. Other public schools and parents of public school students saw the outcome of this case as an example of the “wall” that exists between church and state and that it will be enforced. Because of this case, many schools changed or abolished their own policies regarding
After referring the student to a counselor, the student was suspended for the potential of a significant disruption. The issue with this controversial case was that the student wrote the poem from a first-person basis and the words did not present any physical harm or threat to other students. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the school district because the writing presented the likelihood or potential that a suicide could occur, which could have had a devastating and psychological impact on the school community.
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
The students’ parents believed the issue was still unresolved so they hired attorneys to try the case in court. The lawsuit asked for two things; the first was an injunction to stop the school from enforcing the rule prohibiting the black armbands. They had also requested nominal damages which was a small amount of money sought for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. In this case, nominal damages equaled one dollar (Farish, 33). The first trial took place in July 1966 and was tried by only a judge. There was no jury involved (Farish, 38). Five weeks later the judge returned with his decision; the plaintiff’s request for injunction and nominal damages was denied. The Tinkers were still not satisfied with the outcome and decided to appeal to the next higher court which was the Eighth Circuit. Meanwhile back in Des Moines, Iowa the community reacted angrily to the act of the students while the trial was taking places. Mary Beth Tinker recalls red paint being thrown at the Tinker residence and threatening phone calls (Farish, 41). When the trail in the Eighth Circuit had finally concluded, it had ruled that the Tinkers had lost yet again. The case was then taken to Supreme Court after careful consideration by both sides’
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Mary Beth Tinker was only thirteen years old in December of 1964 when she and four other students were suspended from school because they wore black armbands. The black armbands were a sign of protest against the Vietnam War. The school suspended the students and told them that they could not return to school until they agreed to take off the armbands. The students did not return to school until after the school’s Christmas break, and they wore black the rest of the year, as a sign of protest. The Tinker family, along with other supporters, did not think that the suspension was constitutional and sued the Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Supreme Court’s majority decision was a 7-2 vote that the suspension was unconstitutional (Tinker V. Des Moines).
The First Amendment of the United States gives citizens the five main rights to freedom. Freedom of speech is one of the rights. If people did not have the freedom of speech there would be no way of expressing one’s self and no way to show individuality between beliefs. This Amendment becomes one of the issues in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Supreme Court case that happened in December of 1969. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines there were five students that got suspended for wearing armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. Wearing these armbands was letting the students express their beliefs peacefully. Many people would consider that the school did not have the authority to suspend these petitioners because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
It was a 1986 case involving a seniors, Matthew Fraser, campaign speech at school that used “sexually suggestive comments and gestures” which created an uproar in the audience (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Fraser was suspended for several days and was not allowed to speak at commencement therefore he made the decision to sue the school district since he felt his First Amendment was violated (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). He was voted against seven to two because he used vulgar language which is not allowed in schools (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Because Fraser was not peaceful or non-vulgar like the Tinker case, he was not able to win the case against the Bethel School
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which 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 the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
It was irrational for these students to be suspended from the school. The high school students named John F. Tinker, who was fifteen-years-old, John’s younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, who was thirteen-years-old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, who was sixteen years old, should not have been suspended. They were under the protection of the First Amendment. The parents of those students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expressions and sought an injunction to prevent the school from decupling the students. The Supreme Court of the United Sates stepped in and the question of law was if. They ruled in the favor of the Tinker’s because it was in a seven to two decision "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District."
The case started in Topeka, Kansas, a black third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school seven blocks from her house, but the principal of the school refused simply because the child was black. Brown went to McKinley Burnett, the head of Topeka's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and asked for help (All Deliberate Speed pg 23). The NAACP was eager to assist the Browns, as it had long wanted to challenge segregation in public schools. The NAACP was looking for a case like this because they figured if they could just expose what had really been going on in "separate but equal society" that the circumstances really were not separate but equal, bur really much more disadvantaged to the colored people, that everything would be changed. The NAACP was hoping that if they could just prove this to society that the case would uplift most of the separate but equal facilities. The hopes of this case were for much more than just the school system, the colored people wanted to get this case to the top to abolish separate but equal.
The case specifics involve a student who made a provocative speech to the school body and received a three-day suspension. The schools yet again where given the right to violate his first amendment rights by not letting him give the speech which is not justifiable because the first amendment is supposed to give him all the rights that would allow him to make that speech. One huge case that involves vast majority of most students is the case named Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls 2002.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the topic of freedom of speech and free speech zones on college campuses. This paper will answer the questions: Why have so many Universities who protect academic freedom, retreat into fear of freedom? Are school officials afraid of debate and disagreement? Are they trying to keep people (outside the zone) from hearing words that may offend someone? These questions will be answered through analyses of previous court cases, journal articles and news articles.
I, Tim, write this opinion to dissent with the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.