A Need For Clarity In Censorship And Permissible Student Expression
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2011
by Michael Eza
Since works created by teachers and students are often censored after they have been completed there should be a unique and defined set of values or rules that exemplify what is acceptable public expressions by individuals in high school settings because the current court rulings are not only ambiguous, but they leave the final decision of censorship to the discretion of a single or small group of individuals. Student expression and the censorship of that has been an important issue for the past fifty years since the Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines allowed students some freedom inside of the schoolhouse. The following quote is from an article outlining that case: “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School Dist., the 1969 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that acknowledged student rights. Stating that students do not "shed their constitutional rights...at the schoolhouse gate" (393 U.S. at 506), the Court upheld the right of three Des Moines high school students to wear black armbands as a peaceful symbol of opposition to the Vietnam war.”(Eveslage 1988) While this decision allowed students the freedom of expression inside of school grounds it does not specifically outline when that freedom of expression is disallowed. In fact further court decisions, which are outlined in this paper, end up allowing a small group of people or even one individual in each school or district to decide what does or does not constitute appropriate expressions of student beliefs. As a result countless student works have been censored after they have been created and many times these students felt the subjects they were writing about were valid and important topics to be discussed. Because of problems such as these there needs to be a clear definition on what student expression is and this definition needs to come from an authority (such as the Supreme Court, Congress or The President) that schools and the districts they reside in will be somehow inclined to follow.
This case began in 1985 and its rulings were challenged until the Supreme Court at which point they were upheld. The following quotation outlines the exact specifications of those rulings
“[In July of 1985 The Supreme Court ruled that]1) Publications that operate as forums for student expression cannot be censored merely because of dissatisfaction with the message; and 2) Censorship based on substantial disruption of the educational process requires evidence of such disruption.” (Eveslage 1988) Because of these decisions the courts then created a process for the censorship of student works this process further defines the roles of the school administrators as censors. The following are the powers defined to the schools by this ruling: “Instead of ruling narrowly on student newspapers, the Court in Hazelwood gave discretion to school officials to:
1. Serve as publisher. (The Court equated publisher with editor-in-chief, but ignored the
implied fiscal and legal liability that comes when one exercises such control.)
2. Censor, if there is a "reasonable" educational justification, any expression that does
not properly reflect the school's educational mission. The Court called it reasonable to
censor a news-paper story that school officials believe is not "fair," expression that
deals with "sensitive topics," and content that is "ungrammatical, poorly written,
inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for
immature audiences."
3. Use this power to control expression through any school-sponsored activity. Legal
distinctions between class-produced and extra-curricular publications disappeared.
Theater production (Faaborg, 1985), art shows, debates and pep rallies are just some of
the school-sponsored activities now under tighter control. However, underground
publications produced without teacher assistance remain subject only to the Tinker
standard.
4. Review student expression in advance, even when no guidelines define what will or
will not be censored.”(Eveslage 1988) These rulings have many implications for students, teachers and communities in general. And although these rulings allow students to create publications out of school, recent problems regarding social media services and texting has caused many schools to create barriers for creating out of school publications. Schools currently use this system to ban play productions, newspaper articles and individual students from performing certain actions. Unfortunately, due to the lack of clarity as to what student expression is, these rulings have been used to ban people from attending certain ceremonies due to their sexual orientation “In news that should be shocking but has sadly become all too familiar, yet another high school has banned gay and lesbian students from participating in their student prom” (Ralph 2011) , while in other parts of the country these rulings have been used to suspend students for their activities on Facebook “Hazelwood West High School officials have suspended a sophomore from school for posting a video to Facebook” (KMOV 2011).
Today censorship is at a divide. There are schools that embrace student expression while there are others that employ web filters that ban access to LGBT websites[1], specifically those with relevant material such as that related to pertinent issues like bullying. With the intentions of allowing students more rights in the school system the overall result of the courts may have been to create more restrictions. Recently, the state department of Arizona asked all of the schools to provide demographic information on the students, presumably as a way to target illegal immigrants as they are now illegal by state law there. This seems to be a far cry from a statement in a 1976 review of the practices of censorship which reads: ”Arizona’s English teachers can rest assured censorship today is even worse than it was five years ago. Censorship is not going away if we decide to ignore it. If we fight it we are not likely to win all the battles or even a large part of them, but we may be able to keep the pestilence under control.” (Donelson 1975) It seems thirty years later this statement holds true, the war on censorship is underway and the censors are still winning.
Teachers and students have constantly struggled to stand up for their rights against the weight of authority figures such as the Supreme Courts, school Boards or even local principals. Many articles or projects that students have created have been destroyed or hidden from the public eye and many teachers’ lessons have come under attack or have been halted completely due to concerns the public has, but those who created these projects and lessons often had no idea what they were doing would be considered wrong. In fact, in many cases the people creating these works have done so with intentions of promoting the betterment of society and public good. The school systems are required to maintain a public image, but because there is a lack of clarity as to what that means the current system has been used to manipulate public expression and bring it in line with local or possibly even personal beliefs. The beliefs and traditions of those within a locality should not be able to prevent an individual from expressing themselves through non-violent means if that individual’s beliefs differ from the society they are living in. Beyond the examples above, students are currently banned from classes or events for things like same-sex relationships, cross-dressing, vocalizing controversial opinions, criticizing schools methods or participating in certain social or political movements. While changes are occurring at schools across the country, these changes are often coming as incidences occur. The Congress or Supreme Court of America has the power to provide a more substantial and fair right to the freedom of speech for students and teachers. If a decision were made that would clarify the rights individuals have on public school property many problems within the schools could be solved or averted, court cases could be averted and individuals would be able to understand why a work was rejected or stopped when it became censored. People within the school systems must express themselves and because of this they have an implicit right to know how and what forms they are allowed to express themselves in. It is the duty of the American people to stand up for the freedom of speech and declare a coherent system that allows for the freedom of expression and/or to create a clear set of rules that restricts what can be done in schools based on specific and outlined guidelines. Relying on the sole discretion of school officials to determine freedom of speech decisions within schools has created too many problems to be considered an efficient and reliable system. With the formation of large groups, such as the ACLU, students and teachers are finding more and more ways to challenge the status quo of what is acceptable regarding individual expression in the public court systems. Each year the court cases regarding student expression are rising. It is time to implement a set of guidelines for schools to use. Too many individuals have been harmed by the current system and collectively the American government can help solve the problem. As Totenberg says during a public radio broadcast, “most adults don’t know what their rights are. That’s what the Miranda case, telling people when they’re arrested for criminal offenses, is all about. Most people don’t know what they’re rights are.”(National Public Radio and The Institute For Educational Leadership of the George Washington University 1977) And they deserve and need to know this especially when without this knowledge students’ rights are being abused and disregarded, especially in regard to sexual orientation.
References
ACLU. “Don’t Filter Me”. (2011). www.aclu.org. http://www.aclu.org/dont-filter-me-web-content-filtering-schools. Accessed online.
Donelson, Ken, Ed. Censorship and The Teaching of English.(1975). Rockford, Illinois. National Council of Teachers of English. Accessed online through ERIC.
Eveslage, Tomas. The Supreme Court on "Hazelwood": A Reversal on Regulation of Student Expression.(1988). Eric Digest No. 8. Eric Development Team. Accessed online through ERIC.
KMOV. “High school student suspended for posting video on Facebook”. (2011). St Lois, Missouri. Kmov.com. http://www.kmov.com/news/local/High-school-student-suspended-for-posting-video-on-Facebook-135348038.html. Accessed online.
Krulwich, Robert and Totenberg, Nina. Opinions in EducationProgram 85 “The Courts and The Schools”. (1977). New York, New York. National Public Radio and The Institute for Educational Development of The George Washington University. Accessed online through ERIC.
Ralph, Shannon. “Banned From The Prom”. (2011). Thenextfamily.com. http://thenextfamily.com/2011/05/another-lesbian-banned-from-the-prom/. Accessed online.
[1] The ACLU has recognized this problem and has started a “Don’t Filter Me” Campaign with the following motto: “Our Don't Filter Me project is pursuing the removal of web filters on school computers that are unconstitutionally blocking access to hundreds of LGBT websites, including sites that contain vital resources on subjects like bullying and student gay-straight alliances. We filed lawsuits in several school districts and sent demand letters in many more on behalf of students and organizations whose sites are being blocked. The filters do not block access to comparable anti-LGBT websites that address that discuss the same topics and that violates the First Amendment.” (ACLU 2011)
This Article has been viewed 365 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.