484 U.S. 260 (1988)
The Hazelwood School District operated Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri.1 During the 1982-1983 school year, students enrolled in the Journalism II class wrote, edited, and published the school newspaper Spectrum approximately every three weeks.2 More than 4,500 copies were distributed to students, school personnel, and community members each year.3 The Board of Education provided funding for printing, supplemented by newspaper sales.4
The journalism teacher selected editors, assigned stories, reviewed content, and determined grades for the course that awarded academic credit to students.5 On May 10, 1983, the journalism teacher submitted page proofs for the May 13 issue to Principal Robert Reynolds.6 The proofs included an article describing three students' experiences with pregnancy that discussed sexual activity and birth control.7 Another article on the impact of divorce quoted a student by name regarding her father's behavior.8
Reynolds objected to the pregnancy article because it might be inappropriate for younger students and could identify the students despite the use of false names.9 He also objected to the divorce article because the named student's parents had not been given an opportunity to respond to the comments.10 Reynolds ordered the deletion of the two pages containing these articles, resulting in the publication of a four-page newspaper rather than the planned six-page edition.11 The deleted material occupied approximately one full page.12
Three former student staff members of Spectrum then brought suit against the school district and officials in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.13 After a bench trial, the District Court denied injunctive relief and monetary damages.14 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed that decision.15 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.16
Whether a school-sponsored student newspaper produced as part of the journalism curriculum constitutes a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment?17
School facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have by policy or by practice opened those facilities for indiscriminate use by the general public or by some segment of the public.18 If the facilities have instead been reserved for specific official uses, then the government may regulate the content of speech in those facilities.19
No. The Hazelwood School District operated Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri during the 1982-1983 school year.20 Students enrolled in the Journalism II class wrote, edited, and published Spectrum approximately every three weeks with more than 4500 copies distributed annually.21 The Board of Education provided funding for printing supplemented by newspaper sales.22 The journalism teacher selected editors, assigned stories, reviewed content, and determined grades for the course that awarded academic credit to students.
On May 10, 1983, the journalism teacher submitted page proofs for the May 13 issue to Principal Robert Reynolds. Reynolds objected to the pregnancy article because it might be inappropriate for younger students and could identify the students despite false names.23 Reynolds objected to the divorce article because the named student's parents had not been given an opportunity to respond.24 Reynolds ordered the deletion of the two pages containing these articles resulting in a four-page newspaper.25
Three former student staff members brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.26 The District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The evidence shows that the Journalism II class was part of the school curriculum with students receiving grades and academic credit.27 The school board policy stated that the newspaper was part of the adopted curriculum.28 The journalism teacher had the final authority on what would be published.29 Spectrum was not opened for indiscriminate use by the student body.
Spectrum did not constitute a public forum under the First Amendment.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Marshall And Blackmun
Justice Brennan dissented from the majority's conclusion that Spectrum was not a public forum.31 He described how Spectrum was intended to be a forum for student expression as shown by the Statement of Policy published in the newspaper and the board policy that guaranteed free expression within the rules of responsible journalism.32 Brennan noted the Court of Appeals had held that Spectrum was a public forum because the newspaper was intended to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint.
He maintained that the Tinker standard should apply to protect student speech unless it materially disrupts the school or invades the rights of others.33 Brennan viewed the majority's distinction between personal and school-sponsored speech as allowing too much censorship authority to school officials inconsistent with prior precedent.34
Whether school officials may exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities?35
Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.36
Yes. The Spectrum newspaper was a school-sponsored expressive activity produced as part of the Journalism II curriculum under faculty supervision.37 The activity was designed to impart journalistic skills to student participants.38 School officials retained ultimate control over the content through the journalism teacher and principal review prior to publication.39
The principal's decision to delete the articles was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.40 These concerns included protecting younger students from exposure to sensitive material on sexual activity and birth control.41 The concerns also included safeguarding the privacy interests of students and families discussed in the articles without consent or response opportunity.42
School officials may exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities when their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.43
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell concurred in the Court's opinion.44 He agreed that the standard for regulating student speech in school-sponsored activities is whether the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.45 Powell emphasized that the decision does not grant school officials unlimited authority to censor student expression.46
The standard provides school officials with the necessary flexibility to fulfill their educational mission while protecting students' First Amendment rights.47 He joined the majority to underscore that the holding preserves a balanced approach between school authority and constitutional safeguards for student journalists.48
Whether the principal's decision to delete two articles from the May 13, 1983 issue of Spectrum satisfied the First Amendment standard of reasonable relation to legitimate pedagogical concerns?49
Yes. The principal could reasonably have concluded that the pregnancy article was inappropriate for some of the younger students at the school.52 The article contained frank discussion of sexual activity and birth control.53 The principal could reasonably have concluded that the students might still be identifiable despite false names.54
The principal could also reasonably have concluded that the divorce article was not suitable for publication.55 The article identified a student by name.56 The student's parents had not been given an opportunity to respond to the comments attributed to the student.57 This raised concerns about accuracy and privacy interests of the family involved.58
The principal's decision to delete the two pages was reasonable under the circumstances.59 These circumstances included the recent change in faculty adviser and the need to publish on time or not at all.60
The principal's decision to delete the two articles from the May 13, 1983 issue of Spectrum satisfied the First Amendment standard of reasonable relation to legitimate pedagogical concerns.61
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Marshall And Blackmun
Justice Brennan dissented from the conclusion that the principal's decision satisfied the First Amendment standard.62 He argued that the articles were written in a responsible manner consistent with the educational objectives of the journalism class.63 There was no evidence the articles would have caused any material disruption at the school.64
Brennan maintained that the principal's action was based on personal disagreement with the content.65 The Tinker standard requires suppression only upon a showing of material and substantial interference with school work or discipline or invasion of the rights of others.66