Educators Assess Court Censorship Rule

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows high school officials to censor student newspapers has journalism teachers and students predicting a wave of restrictions, the turning of papers into public relations organs and even the emergence of underground newspapers.

But some educators, including state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, disagree. They cite a state law that largely protects high school newspapers from censorship. The law prohibits prior restraint of material in school publications by high school administrators.

“The new ruling doesn’t really affect California,” Honig said. “In California, we don’t have a policy allowing the principal to censor.”

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that public school officials have broad powers to censor school newspapers and exercise “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.”

The ruling, which stemmed from a case involving a Missouri high school newspaper that wanted to publish first-person accounts of teen-age pregnancies and divorces, is expected to have a wide effect on such publications nationally.

More ‘Tinker Bell’ News

In the San Fernando Valley, some students and journalism teachers predict that the ruling will mean more stories about social activities, academic awards and “Tinker Bell news,” as one student called it.

“I think it can set a precedent for censorship just for the sake of avoiding controversy,” said David Gregory, a senior at Birmingham High School in Van Nuys and co-editor of The Courier, the school’s newspaper.

“It really takes away our only avenue of student expression,” he added. “You can’t have the administration acting as thought police for the students.”

Others, however, say high school journalists have little to fear. They predict campus policies will be virtually unchanged because of a state law enacted in 1979 and amended in 1983 that largely protects high school journalists from censorship.

Although the state law gives public school students the right to freedom of speech and of the press, it includes notable exceptions: Obscene, libelous or slanderous materials are exempted, as are articles that could lead students to disrupt school activities or break laws. Advertisements for alcohol and illegal substances are also banned.

Mike Wiener, a Canoga Park High School journalism adviser who helped draft the state law, said he is confident student journalists will continue to operate freely. “I really think that anyone who says that the Supreme Court decision will affect rules in California or Los Angeles is dead wrong,” Wiener said.

Student articles should not be subject to censorship by school administrators, said Sid Oring, the journalism adviser at Birmingham High School.

“It’s the fact that news is going to be controlled by someone other than a newsperson that in itself is a threat,” Oring said. He predicted that the Supreme Court decision will probably be tested locally, even with the existence of a more lenient state law.

“The principal will say, ‘Let’s put cheerleaders and academic decathlon on the front page rather than a story on how many kids were busted in an undercover operation,’ ” Oring said.

A number of front pages of Valley high school newspapers surveyed by The Times were generally not controversial, but some more serious social issues were covered on inside pages. School papers usually focus on homecoming celebrations, preparing for college, counseling and tutoring, student activities and clubs, sports, movie reviews and school plays. The more hard-hitting stories--contested school elections, teen-age pregnancies, AIDS and rape--generally get less play.

But some journalists and civil libertarians fear that, even with the state law, the Supreme Court ruling could erode student press freedoms. Some argue that the ruling could take precedence over a state law in any event. Some argue the law is vague enough to enable an attorney to argue that the federal law supersedes state law.

“Things have a real domino effect,” ACLU attorney Carol Sobel said. “Some school district is going to say, ‘Look at this federal law, this federal law makes sense.’ ”

Oring said he already fears administrators will try to censor an editorial cartoon scheduled to run in this week’s edition of The Courier. The drawing criticizes the school’s policy of disciplining students who refuse to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance. It depicts a tough matron in a military uniform holding a gun to the head of a scrawny student as she orders him to recite the words.

Even those educators who dismiss the notion of censorship say the high court’s ruling could lead to greater scrutiny of student publications by administrators.

‘More Restrictive Standard’

“This may change the climate so that some people follow a more restrictive standard,” Honig acknowledged.

Gregg Solkovits, journalism adviser of the Monroe Doctrine at James Monroe High School in Sepulveda, said the decision could encourage principals “to harass the paper.”

“Some principals are going to interpret it as a sign to turn the newspaper into a PR piece,” Solkovits said.

How involved the principals are in the publications varies from school to school.

In Off the Press, the student newspaper for Evergreen High School in Sylmar, a survey of attitudes about drugs, sex and other social issues was pulled from publication last week, on the ground of obscenity. Principal Robert R. Beck said he regretted having to censor the paper, but believed his decision “was on the right track.”

Reseda Principal Robert Kladifko, who calls the school newspaper, the Regent Review, “an arm of the school,” said that he supports the court’s decision, but that he has not yet had to second-guess his students.

He believes the ruling’s effect will be minimal at Reseda.

“I don’t think things will change at all,” Kladifko said. “We’ve already crossed this bridge, and there’s a good understanding in place.”

John Anderson, principal of James Monroe High School, said he maintains a hands-off policy.

“I don’t see the paper until the students see it,” Anderson said. “I would only step in if I felt that the students were writing a story that was humiliating a member of the faculty or the custodial people.”

Underground Papers

Anderson predicted that, if principals go too far in censoring student expression, students may turn to publishing alternative or underground newspapers. Although most students interviewed said they were dismayed by the high court’s decision, other student journalists said that they are not interested in grappling with controversial issues on their school papers anyway.

Heather Squires, editor of Highlander Highlights, the Granada Hills High School newspaper, said one of her main duties is to see that nothing libelous gets into the paper.

“I’m not running a controversial paper,” Squires said. “I just want to present what’s happening.”

She said the school principal has never interfered with the newspaper.

“If my principal wants to look over my paper the day before, she’s welcome to,” Squires said. “Our administration is very supportive.”

Unlike Squires, however, other students said they are committed to fighting for their right to self-expression.

‘Even More Determined’

Cindy Holsey, Monroe High School newspaper editor, said journalism students would probably be “even more determined to publish something controversial” in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Birmingham Courier co-editor Gregory, like other high school journalists, said administrators too often think the students want only to publicize controversy.

“I think the court and many principals are worried that all students are irresponsible and that their primary purpose is to go after people,” he said. “We don’t print things just for the sake of injury or just to point out the wrongs of the school. It’s done responsibly.”