Press dispute arises again at Stevenson High School

Students felt forced to publish latest newspaper edition after disagreement with administrators

By Jamie Loo, First Amendment reporter

December 3, 2009

Censorship or editing?

It depends on who you ask at Stevenson High School.

The Stevenson High School newspaper, the Statesman, and school administration have found themselves clashing over the content of the school newspaper once again. Stevenson High School is in Lincolnshire, a northern suburb of Chicago.

Administrators disagreed with three stories in the Statesman’s November issue and held the paper from printing on its normal deadline. Last week students say they were forced to publish the newspaper or receive failing grades in their journalism class.

Statesman Editor in Chief Pam Selman said last week that student staff was given less than two hours to printing deadline to produce the newspaper or risk failure. Students were given a layout with instructions on what stories would run and which pages the stories would appear on, she said. Selman said student staff did not want to publish the paper and if forced to, would refuse to have their bylines on the publication.

But Selman said school administrators said the bylines had to be included. She wanted to run an editor’s note on the front page to explain that students didn’t produce the paper, which Selman said administrators also rejected. The paper came out Nov. 25.

“It was not a representation of our product,” she said.

The November controversy stemmed from news stories about shoplifting, teen pregnancy, and the National Honor Society and mentors program. Two students quoted anonymously in the honor society story admitted to drinking and smoking, which are against the group’s code of conduct.

When administration first decided the stories couldn’t be printed, students asked to print a paper with a blank front page accompanied by an editor’s note explaining what happened. Administrators refused to print the November paper entirely. Selman said administrators gave them the option of revising their stories or saving them after more editing for the December issue. She said student staff chose to wait until December and were surprised they were forced to publish the paper last week. Of the controversial stories, only the shoplifting story was printed.

Jim Conrey, director of public information for Stevenson High School, said Monday that the school always intended to publish a November issue and never said the three stories wouldn’t be published. After the stories are edited and meet journalism curriculum standards they can be published, he said. Conrey said the stories needed revisions and that this is an editing issue not a censorship issue.

“It happens in newsrooms across the country every day. This is nothing new,” he said.

Conrey said he did not know whether administration dictated specific stories or pages in last week’s issue and if students were threatened with failing grades. Faculty advisers worked with students a few weeks ago on different page layouts, he said, so that if a story needed to be withheld that they would have some alternatives.

Selman said the students feel they’ve been censored and that administrators are giving inconsistent reasons to the Statesman and the media on what actually happened. Conrey issued a statement for the school on Nov. 20, which Selman said focused on the anonymous sources issue and not on who made the decision to stop publication and reasons behind it.

Administrators haven’t had a problem with anonymous sources in the paper in the past, Selman said. The Statesman has an anonymous source policy, she said, which is printed in the paper. Selman said that the newspaper reserves the right to protect sources under various circumstances such as cases where a source could receive mental or physical harassment as a result of a story, or be prosecuted for illegal activities. The Statesman has run stories with anonymous sources in the past, Selman said, and administration did not complain about the policy.

Regardless of the Statesman’s policy, Conrey said the school has been very clear, particularly since the last school year, that it does not encourage the use of anonymous sources. In January, the Statesman published a story about casual sex among students known as “hooking up,” which used students’ first names and graduation year. Administration felt the stories were reckless and unbalanced. In the wake of the controversy, English teacher Barbara Thill voluntarily resigned as the newspaper’s faculty adviser in April.

“The cloak of anonymity does not guarantee truthful statements from a source,” Conrey said. “Also, within a school, it is much more difficult for a source to remain anonymous than within the community at large.”

Selman, who was also part of the Statesman staff during last spring’s controversy, said she is disappointed at the way administration has treated student journalists. Many students and faculty members have expressed concern about what has happened, she said, and are supportive of the student paper. Selman said the Statesman is trying to move forward and wants to communicate with administration. They’ve retained legal counsel, she said, and hope to resolve this situation peacefully.

“We’ve been recognized as one of the top high school papers in the country and I’d hate to see that reputation fall because of administration’s decisions,” she said.

Limited press freedom for students

Although the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case determined that students maintain their First Amendment rights on school grounds, student journalists still have some limitations based on other precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the Tinker case, the court ruled that school officials can only regulate student speech if it would cause a disruption of school activities or an invasion in the rights of others.

In the 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, the court determined that school officials can censor student speech if they can show a reasonable educational justification for the censorship. Some courts also require that school officials show the censorship is “viewpoint neutral” and doesn’t discriminate against particular views.

The decision didn’t overturn the Tinker case but defined the difference between student-initiated speech and school sponsored speech in forums such as a student newspaper, yearbook or play. The Hazelwood decision helped draw clearer distinctions between student expression which takes place in a “public forum” versus a “non-public forum.”

School sponsored media is typically considered part of a non-public forum because it is not usually open to the public for publishing or broadcasting. The public forum definition tends to cover extracurricular and independently produced student media. Student media that are considered public forums have greater First Amendment protections than non-public forums and are not subject to Hazelwood’s standards. School sponsored media defined as non-public forums can have wide First Amendment protection but those are determined on a case by case basis.

According to the Student Press Law Center, a legal and educational organization devoted to aiding the student press, private school media isn’t legally effected by the Hazelwood ruling because the First Amendment only protects against action by government officials.

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts have passed laws that provide more protections for student journalists than what is dictated in the Hazelwood decision.

The Hazelwood decision doesn’t apply to the college media and many experts say the college media has the same First Amendment protection as professional journalists. The standard for college censorship cases in Indiana and Wisconsin was set through a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Hosty v. Carter case. In that case, a college administrator in Illinois attempted to use the Hazelwood decision as justification for prior review of a student newspaper. The newspaper had just printed articles and editorials critical of administration. A lower court ruled unanimously in favor of the student newspaper finding that the Hazelwood standard isn’t appropriate for college media and affirming the strong First Amendment protection for the college press. But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled in favor of administration in 2005, saying that the Hazelwood standard should be the “starting point” in college censorship cases. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 2006.

Although Illinois is part of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, the state passed legislation negating the Hosty decision. Oregon has a student expression law that protects the high school and college press.

To learn more about these cases visit these Student Press Law Center links:
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Hosty v. Carter