Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier Case Summary

Running Head: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)1
Brief Summary of the case
The case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) involved students in the
Journalism II class at the Hazelwood East High School located in St. Louis, Missouri. The
students authored an article under the topic peer experience with aspect of teen pregnancy and
the associated effects of divorce on the lives of students. The students edited and published the
article as part of their school curriculum. In pursuant to the schools publishing practices, the
article was forwarded to the school head for his perusal and final approval for publishing. From
his analysis, he objected the subject of teen pregnancy and divorce which appeared in the article
and directed that part to be deleted (Golub, 1988). The school head argued that the content of the
article that referenced sexual topics and birth control issues were not fitting to some of the
younger students and that the article featured some sensitive information that were not fully
supported by the school’s appropriate publishing conduct. Because the school head believed that
there was not enough time to make adjustments on the content of the article, he opted to delete
the sections touching on teen pregnancy and effects of divorce. The journalism students felt the
principal violated their First Amendment Right regarding the freedom of speech and pursued to
challenge the principal’s actions in the District Court (Golub, 1988).
Case Progression
The case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) progressed through three
different courts. The first court was U.S District Court located in the Eastern District of Missouri
in St. Louis, after the district court’s ruling, the students sought to appeal the ruling in U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court of Appeals challenged the district court’s ruling
arguing that the article was a public forum which to them integrated public interest and extended
beyond the schools jurisdiction (Golub, 1988). The school then opted to challenge the decision
by the U.S Court of Appeals in the U.S Supreme Court which overturned the ruling of the Court
of Appeals on the grounds that the action of the school’s principal did not infringe the First
Amendment regarding the rights and freedom speech of the students. In other words, the school
had all the rights and legitimate interest to remove or alter the content of the article that the
school found inappropriate and would be imprimatur of the school.
First Court: The U.S District Court
The case brought before the U.S District Court concerns the extent to which school heads
may employ their editorial powers and authority in the school journalism class newspaper
authored as part of the school curriculum for the journalism class. The students believed that the
institution infringed on their First Amendment Rights on free speech through their action of
deleting two pages of content of the article regarding student’s familiarities with issue of
adolescent pregnancy and the overarching effects of divorce. They sought to challenge the action
of the school in the District Court (Golub, 1988). In the court, Justice White conveyed the court’s
judgment.
The petitioners in this case included the following parties:
1. Hazelwood School District
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
2
2. School heads:
a) Robert Eugene Reynolds- the school principal
b) Howard Emerson
The respondents of the case included the following parties:
1. Three former student of Hazelwood East
District Court’s opinion and ruling
The school newspaper commonly named as Spectrum was inscribed and authored by the
students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East. The Spectrum was printed and distributed
after every 3-weeks based on the budget allocated by the school and subject to the proof and
review of the content of the article by the school principal (Robert Eugene Reynolds) before it is
published (Golub, 1988). Following closer review and analysis of the content of the article
submitted to the principal, the principal found some stories touching on student’s familiarities
with teen pregnancy and impact of divorce on students at school inappropriate and directed
Emerson- the newspaper advisor to delete the two pages featuring the highlighted issues. They
subsequently objected the actions of the school to delete the two pages with the highlighted
contents and opted to file the case in the U.S District Court on the grounds of the violation of
their rights to free speech. They sought for injunction relief and damages in monetary terms
(Golub, 1988).
The case underwent an injunctive trial in the District Court. However, the District Court
denied an injunction on the grounds that the action of the school principal to delete the two pages
they deemed inappropriate was not a desecration of the First Amendment. The District Court’s
opinion held that the officials of the institution had the rights and the powers to impose any
restraint on the student’s opinion and speech especially in activities that are considered central to
the school’s education priorities and functions which would include but not limited to the
printing of the school sponsored newspaper (Golub, 1988). The court also held that the decision
of the principal had a significant and reasonable basis. In this case, the school principal was
justified in deleting the pages with the contents he deemed inappropriate. The students sought to
challenge the resolution of the District Court in the Court of Appeals.
Second Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Following the verdict of the U.S District Court, the students opted to appeal in the U.S
Court of Appeals on the grounds that the District Court did not give substantial and reasonable
ruling. However, the U.S Court of Appeals upended the ruling by the District Court on the
grounds that the school newspaper was both a fragment of the embraced curriculum by the
school and also the newspaper contents deleted was subject to public forum since the newspaper
was subject to student’s viewpoint (Golub, 1988). The U.S Court of Appeals further argued that
the school newspaper had a status of public forum and this made it preclude school heads from
altering its subjects unless deemed obligatory to avoid any subsequent meddling with the school
activities which in this case did not seem to be the case. The Court of Appeals also established
no proof in the records that proved that the school principle forecast of inappropriateness of the
contents of the article could have any impact on the students or would disrupt the student’s or
schools class activities which would cause substantial disorder in the school. As such the U.S
Court of Appeals overturned the ruling of the District Court (Golub, 1988).
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
3
The U.S Court of Appeals further concluded that the school officials would only have a
justification to alter or modify the contents of the article on the grounds that it violated the rights
of others. However, according to the Court of Appeals the decision of the principle would only
be justified if without any reasonable doubt, the publication of the newspaper would create a tort
obligation to the school which according to the court, there was no evidence of tort action or
even a libel or any form of invasion of privacy (Golub, 1988). As a result, the U.S Court of
Appeals resolved that the action of the institution violated the student’s First Amendment Rights
on freedom of speech through their action of deleting the two pages of their article.
The third Court: The U.S Supreme Court
The school sought to challenge the verdict by the U.S Court of Appeals in the Supreme
Court on the grounds that the school had the rights to control the contents published on the
school newspaper and that the aspect of public forum do not apply in the said context. According
to the Supreme Court, the schools do not have the possession of the attributes that qualifies them
to be called a forum of public expression like in the case of public parks, streets, and other
traditional public forums. However, the Supreme Court held that schools can only qualify to be
termed public forums only if by either procedure or preparation the authorities of the school
opened the school for unselective use by the public (Golub, 1988). Nonetheless, the schools are
reserved for other intended roles which in this case make them a no public forum. Thus, the
school leadership has the rights to impose any restraint which is reasonable on the action
including rights to speech of the students and teachers as well as other members of the school
community. The U.S Supreme Court also referred to the ruling by the District Court and held
that the school heads had the authority and the power to exercise authority over the contents
published in the institution’s newspaper. As such, the finding of the Court of Appeal that the
deleted content was subject to public forum was ambivalent and equivocal. The Supreme Court
overturned the ruling by the Court of Appeals and affirmed the ruling by the District Court
(Golub, 1988).
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
4
References
Golub, S. (1988). Tinker to Fraser to Hazelwood-Supreme Court’s Double Play Combination
Defeats High School Students’ Rally for First Amendment Rights: Hazelwood School
Dist. v. Kuhlmeier. DePaul L. Rev., 38, 487.