Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Friday, May 5, 2017

The Jill Bloomberg Case Asks Where Do Official Duties of a Principal and Politics Intersect, if at all?

The case of Jill Bloomberg is turning into a media event which will help analyze the very important issue of where politics, public employment, and student learning intersect.

Her fight is our fight, collectively speaking. Be the change you wish to see in the world.

Jill Bloomberg

DOE is bullying me because I spoke out: principal


Jill Bloomberg, a loud critic of school segregation in NYC, is suing DOE officials for what she describes as a bizarre retaliation campaign.



The NYC Department of Education Gets A Green Light To Retaliate Against Park Slope Collegiate Principal Jill Bloomberg



Betsy Combier

Investigation of activist principal has free-speech advocates asking what politics are allowed at school
By Cassi Feldman         CFELDMAN@CHALKBEAT.ORG    
The strange saga of a Park Slope principal accused of promoting communism took another turn Wednesday, when her request for a temporary halt to the probe against her was denied.
Jill Bloomberg, principal of Park Slope Collegiate, is known for her activism, particularly around the issue of school segregation. But the Department of Education says now she’s gone too far by sharing her political views at school and “actively recruiting” students into a communist organization.
“We lost the battle, not the war,” said Bloomberg’s attorney Jeanne Mirer after the judge’s decision to allow the investigation to proceed.
The war, it seems, will partly depend on whether Bloomberg violated D-130 — a Chancellor’s regulation that prohibits school employees from “being involved in any activities, including fundraising, on behalf of any candidate, candidates, slate of candidates or political organization/committee during working hours.”
The city claims, among other allegations, that Bloomberg violated the regulation by advocating on behalf of the Progressive Labor Party, a political organization with communist ties, at school. Bloomberg denies that and says she isn’t a member herself. But the case raises a larger question of what the regulation is meant to cover.
Mirer says a close read suggests it only bars election-related political activity — campaigning for a candidate, for instance — and not the type of organizing of which Bloomberg is accused.
If it did cover non-electoral politics, she said in court Wednesday, that would create a slippery slope for any educator who dared to voice a political view. “Any ideological belief could be the subject of a violation,” she warned.
Judge Paul Gardephe seemed unmoved by her argument. “I read the relevant parts [of D-130],” he said. “This lawsuit is not about whether D-130 is fair.”
But Mirer is not alone in worrying about how the regulation is being applied. Arthur Eisenberg, legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, is advising Mirer and has his own concerns about the free speech issues at play.
According to Eisenberg, the rules are the same for students, teachers and principals: “It’s well-established that school officials do not lose their First Amendment rights to speak out as citizens even when they are in school,” he said. “The standard is they can’t speak out in ways that are disruptive to the functioning of the school.”
Eisenberg declined to speculate on whether or not Bloomberg might have done that, but he said he was confident that D-130 could only apply to electoral politics.
A broader interpretation, he said, “puts the DOE in the position of having to regulate issue-oriented speech in ways that make it difficult to know how and where to draw the line.” Limiting free speech on issues that are political in nature, he said, could potentially impact student clubs that deal with gay rights, for instance, environmental causes, or racism. “And we know that can’t be right,” he said.
Eisenberg also questioned another line in the regulation quoted in the city’s court documents, which calls for a “posture of complete neutrality” on political candidates. Even if that were possible, he said, it wouldn’t be desirable.
“The obligation of an academic or teacher is to engage in critical judgment and to support those judgements with reasoning and fact,” Eisenberg said. “And that may be inconsistent with a principle of absolute neutrality.”
We asked the city’s law department what it made of Mirer’s argument that D-130 was meant to be more narrow in scope. Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the department, said he wasn’t familiar with argument and couldn’t comment. 

Thursday, May 4, 2017

The NYC Department of Education Gets A Green Light To Retaliate Against Park Slope Collegiate Principal Jill Bloomberg

The Jill Bloomberg incident (I mean the investigation of her) is fascinating because it puts whistleblowers who are PRINCIPALS and the issues of racial segregation, discrimination and unequal treatment by the New York City Department of Education out into the public eye.

I would like to say that I have seen - and not been silent about - racial inequality in the NYC DOE for many years, since 1999, and experienced the horrible retaliation of the DOE when Carmen Farina called me a bitch, liar, thief, etc. on May 23, 2000 for asking about the $225,000 for PS 6 and PS 198 as part of the Annenberg Challenge For the Arts Grant, and removed my daughter from the math team saying she was too stupid to be there; then, as PTA President of MS 54 and finding out that Principal Larry Lynch took the $13,000+ money we raised for the PTA, I was banned from the school (NOT - teachers  at the school would not allow Principal Larry Lynch to do it, but he tried); when I and the chinese parents asked where more than $300,000 was at Stuyvesant High School, my oldest daughter was verbally attacked and was missing for 1 1/2 years (they told her I was involved in the disparaging treatment of her, and I did not know until I found her).

I have not yet met Jill Bloomberg, but I am 100% behind her and will continue to write about her case.


Jill Bloomberg
Parents at Federal Court in support of Jill Bloomberg
See:

Park Slope Collegiate Principal Jill Bloomberg Sues the NYC Department of Education For Retaliation Against Her For Speaking Out Against Racial Injustice 

(NYC Rubber Room Reporter May 3, 2017)

The latest update is that the Federal Judge denied Ms. Bloomberg'd request for an injunction:

A Principal Is Accused of Being a Communist, Rattling a Brooklyn School
NY TIMES
It was early March when a representative from the New York City Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations sat down with Jill Bloomberg, the longtime principal of Park Slope Collegiate in Brooklyn, a combined middle and high school, to inform her that she was under investigation.

The representative told Ms. Bloomberg that she could not tell her the nature of any allegations, nor who had made them, but said that she would need to interview Ms. Bloomberg’s staff.

Then one of her assistant principals, who had met with an investigator, revealed to her exactly what the allegation was, one that seemed a throwback to another era: Communist organizing.

“I think I just said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. This is something O.S.I. investigates?’” Ms. Bloomberg said, using an abbreviation for the Office of Special Investigations. “I mean, what decade are we living in?”

But after the initial shock, she said she realized she had been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time.

Over the years, Ms. Bloomberg has become one of the most outspoken and visible critics of New York City’s public schools, regularly castigating the Education Department’s leadership at forums and in the news media. Most of her criticism is aimed at actions that she says perpetuate a segregated and unequal educational system and that penalize black and Latino students. Through the years, she has helped organize protests and assemblies to push for integration and equal resources and treatment for her almost entirely black and Latino student body.

Last Friday, Ms. Bloomberg filed a lawsuit against the school system saying it violated her rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects an individual’s civil rights and the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Ms. Bloomberg was seeking an injunction to stop the investigation until her lawsuit is resolved.

In filings with the court, the city denies her claim, saying the investigation is unrelated to her activism, but that Department of Education policies ban political organizing and fund-raising of any type during school hours or on school grounds.The department “was obligated” to open an investigation “after allegations of misconduct were brought to its attention,” Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city’s Law Department, said in an email. “Based upon the facts and the evidence, we believe this lawsuit has no merit.”

According to a letter sent to Ms. Bloomberg’s lawyers from the general counsel for the Education Department, Ms. Bloomberg and two unnamed teachers at the school are accused of belonging to the Progressive Labor Party, a Communist organization. They are also accused of recruiting students and inviting them to participate in the party’s activities, including marches.

Ms. Bloomberg, 53, denies those allegations.

A diminutive woman whose students often tower over her, Ms. Bloomberg did not set out to become an activist against her employer. She started her career teaching in Chicago before coming to work in New York City’s schools. When she was named principal of Park Slope Collegiate in 2004 — at the time, it was one of three small high schools in the former John Jay High School building in Park Slope — she said she found a deeply neglected school with a leaky roof, toilets that overflowed, moldy walls and doors that would not open properly. The student body was being neglected as well, she said, with few of its graduates ready for the rigors of college.

But, she said, she did not think much about integration or equal resources at the time and focused on teaching.

“I taught Brown v. Board, I taught about this landmark case on integration in segregated schools, with no irony,” she said as she sat in her sparsely decorated office earlier this week. “We all just took for granted that there was something broken about the system and we have to do the best we can.”

But that changed in 2010, when she learned the education department wanted to open a new high school in her building to serve white middle- and upper-class families in the neighborhood who shunned Park Slope Collegiate. City officials proposed creating a selective secondary school to be called Millennium Brooklyn High School as a sister school to the overwhelmingly white Millennium High School in Manhattan.

Ms. Bloomberg said she did not understand why the white parents in the neighborhood could not simply send their children to one of the existing high schools. She said she thought the district had an excellent opportunity to integrate this black and Latino high school with white students from Park Slope and neighborhoods nearby.

But department officials were adamant about creating the new high school, which would screen students for test scores and behavior. As an enticement, the department promised to fix up the dilapidated John Jay building if Millennium came in.

“That really did it,” Ms. Bloomberg said.

She had been begging, for years for money to fix up her school. “You mean there is money? They’ve been sitting on money or they can find money if it’s for white students?” Ms. Bloomberg recalled thinking. “This was too much. It was right in our faces. It became clear to the students: ‘You’re not good enough.’”
Ms. Bloomberg, parents and students at the school began to protest the new Millennium Brooklyn school. In the end, they lost, and the new Millennium went in.

But a fire had been lit. Over the years, Ms. Bloomberg supported her students in fighting the installation of metal detectors in their school, helped organize school assemblies to talk about police violence, and had spoken out passionately against segregation and what she considers racist Education Department policies.

Some teachers at Park Slope Collegiate disagreed with the assemblies and other protests that Ms. Bloomberg, who is extremely popular among her students and their parents — had supported and refused to participate.

Ms. Bloomberg has been admonished several times by her supervisors for speaking out, but never disciplined.

Then in January, Ms. Bloomberg sent an email to department officials accusing them of discriminating against the predominantly black and Latino schools at John Jay by allotting Millennium twice as many sports teams as the other schools. Not long after that, the investigator visited her school.

The inquiry has fractured the school community, evoking for some the era of McCarthyism in the 1950s when people were falsely accused of being Communists. Many teachers and staff believe that the accusations came from people inside the building, now split into Bloomberg supporters and those who stand with her accusers.

Rhonda Hendrickson teaches social studies at Park Slope Collegiate. She is a model teacher, a designation given to exemplary instructors. “I was shocked by the accusations,” she said. “I think this investigation has unearthed an undercurrent of division and now people are taking sides.”

Ms. Hendrickson said there was now a sense of distrust at staff meetings. When the allegations first came out, Ms. Hendrickson was teaching a unit on the Cold War and a student asked her a question about communism as a form of government. “I felt caught, should I answer? How should I answer? I can’t even teach it because I am scared,” she said. “I felt like I was in some type of twilight zone because we teach this as something that happened in the past, but that we’re smarter than that now.”

Ms. Hendrickson said she had never seen any signs of communist or other political activity at the school, but that some teachers were uncomfortable with Ms. Bloomberg’s efforts to fight racism.

A small number of staff members, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said the allegations against Ms. Bloomberg might be justified. They point to posts on the Progressive Labor Party website that claim students have joined a study group sponsored by the party, which is “using this struggle as a school to build communist ideas and raise class consciousness.”

Ms. Bloomberg denies any knowledge of the Progressive Labor Party or any organizing efforts for it. She said she could not control what groups other school workers or parents might belong to. She also said all events at Park Slope Collegiate were organized by the school and not by any outside organization.

Nathan Maybloom, a gym teacher, said Ms. Bloomberg created the atmosphere of fear by revealing to her staff the nature of an investigation that was supposed to be confidential. The investigation should go forward, he said. “When O.S.I. comes in, they are not usually coming in for a small little thing,” he said.

Mr. Maybloom said some teachers did not support Ms. Bloomberg but were afraid to speak out. He said some staff members believed that Colleen Siegel, the chairwoman for the teachers union chapter at the school, was one of the people who complained about Ms. Bloomberg to school officials and that there was now an effort to force her from her union position.

Ms. Siegel would not say whether she was one of the accusers, but said she had been elected chapter chairwoman twice and no one had tried to remove her until now. She said the investigation was not about “anything other than allegations of political organizing in public schools, and if there has been political organizing, that is a violation of the public trust and the public needs to know.”

In Federal District Court in Manhattan on Monday, Ms. Bloomberg’s lawyers argued that the atmosphere of division and fear from a baseless accusation was reason for a federal judge to order the city’s education department to halt the investigation.

So many teachers, parents, former and current students filed into the courtroom to support Ms. Bloomberg that Judge Paul G. Gardephe invited the dozens standing along the walls to take seats in the jurors’ box and in chairs near the lawyers’ tables.

On Wednesday, Judge Gardephe declined to issue an injunction, saying that Ms. Bloomberg had not proved in the preliminary hearing that her rights were being violated, that the investigation had a chilling effect on her free speech or that of other workers at the school.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, found the McCarthy-era echoes of the investigation shocking. “The use of that language just sounded the alarm,” she said, adding that the city was walking a fine line in trying to parse what it considered political activity. “Teachers and principals don’t check their rights at the schoolhouse door.”

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Park Slope Collegiate Principal Jill Bloomberg Sues the NYC Department of Education For Retaliation Against Her For Speaking Out Against Racial Injustice

The New York City Department of  Education is always retaliating against anyone who dares to ask questions. Always.

On May 23, 2000 PS 6 Principal Carmen Farina (yes, our current Chancellor) called me up after I returned from the Annenberg  Challenge For The Arts Symposium where I spoke about the PS6-PS 198 Arts Funding project I designed, the Arts Together Community Partnership.

At the Symposium I was told by teachers at PS 198 that they had no arts program. I asked the PS 6 Assistant Principal where the money was? The AP left after she told me that she would speak with Carmen.

The rest is history. Carmen was removed from PS 6 in February 2001. Shen she rose up through the ranks, becoming Deputy Chancellor under Joel Klein. Then there were more scandals, and Carmen was told to resign/"retire". She "retired" and was brought out of retirement to become Chancellor of the New York City School System under Mayor of New York City Bill De Blasio.

Carmen is an expert at retaliation. Let's hope she loses this case.

Jill Bloomberg's Federal Court papers:

Complaint
Order To Show Cause
Department of Education Surr Reply

Betsy Combier
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
 betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials
Jill Bloomberg's Supporters Outside of Court
Outspoken Principal On Racial Justice Accuses City of  Retaliation
 · by Yasmeen Khan

The principal of Park Slope Collegiate, a secondary school in Brooklyn, said she is being improperly investigated for engaging in communist activities and for recruiting students to advance her political causes. In response, the principal, Jill Bloomberg, filed a lawsuit against the city's Department of Education. 
The suit contends that the investigation is in retaliation for recent, negative comments about the Department of Education. 
Bloomberg told reporters on Monday that "my [political] activities have been so public and so transparent" that it is an "absurdity" to think she would be secretly trying to promote a political cause.

Jill Bloomberg
As principal of Park Slope Collegiate, Bloomberg is well-known for her years of speaking out on issues of racial justice and for specifically calling on the city's school leaders to address segregation.
But earlier this year, Bloomberg more pointedly accused the Department of Education of discrimination when it allocated fewer resources for sports teams to her mostly black and Latino students than it did to another school in the building that enrolled more white students, according to her legal complaint.
Soon after, the Office of Special Investigations, which is part of the Department of Education, began investigating claims made by an anonymous tip: that Bloomberg engaged in communist activities through the Progressive Labor Party and recruited students "to participate in organizational activities, including marches for her political organization," according to court documents filed by the city.
Those documents show Bloomberg is being investigated for several issues. Among them is an allegation that her husband filmed a documentary for an organization associated with the Progressive Labor Party, and that students and staff at the school "were included in the documentary without their authorization." The city also says that there may be a conflict of interest, because the documentary was screened at the school.
There are other allegations, including that a mandated course is not being taught and that "students who voice opinions different from those of plaintiff are not allowed to express them."
Bloomberg's lawyers have not yet responded to the city filing.
But in an initial hearing on the case on Monday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Bloomberg's attorneys called the investigation dangerous because of its vague allegations. Bloomberg, school staff and parents said the investigation is also creating a chilling effect at the school on speech related to social justice. The hearing was attended by nearly a hundred of Bloomberg's supporters.
The city argued that its Office of Special Investigations had a responsibility to examine the claims, which would violate academic policy if true. According to city regulations, educators must "maintain a posture of neutrality" when it comes to political organizations and candidates. There is nothing explicitly about political speech in the regulations.
Some New York City educators have said it is unclear to them where the line is between supporting the experiences of their students, many of whom who are black, immigrants and Muslims, and upholding city policy on politics, especially in the current, charged atmosphere.
For example, some teachers who have posted signs that say "Black Lives Matter" or "Immigrants Are Welcome" in their classrooms reported to WNYC that they were told to take them down.
Bloomberg is asking the court to stop the city's investigation while her lawsuit continues. A ruling is expected on Wednesday.

Is Park Slope principal Jill Bloomberg under investigation for ‘communist activities’? Here’s what we know about the odd allegations
Jill Bloomberg, the outspoken and popular principal of Park Slope Collegiate, appeared in federal court Monday to ask a judge to temporarily halt a Department of Education investigation against her.
In a lawsuit filed Friday, Bloomberg alleges that the city launched its probe in retaliation for her activism on behalf of her students. “What speech is prohibited?” she asked outside the courtroom. “The speech I am most known for is anti-racism.”
The investigation started, according to the suit, soon after she complained to the Department of Education about how sports teams were allocated to the four different schools that comprise the John Jay Campus in Park Slope, where her school is based. Bloomberg wrote that Millennium Brooklyn, the school with the largest percentage of white students, has a separate sports program shared with its affiliated Manhattan high school, and together they had more teams than the other schools in the building combined.
In March, the suit alleges, an investigator from the Office of Special Investigations, an arm of the DOE, visited Park Slope Collegiate and told Assistant Principal Carla Laban that the investigation pertains to “communist activities taking place at the school.”
The city denies any retaliation against Bloomberg. It argues that it first received a confidential complaint in May 2016 that Bloomberg was “actively recruiting students to participate in a political party,” later identified as the Progressive Labor Party. (The website for that party does acknowledge communist ties; Bloomberg says she is not a member.)
Bloomberg’s alleged political advocacy is a violation of two Chancellor’s Regulations, the city argues, which “prohibit the use of school facilities, equipment and supplies on behalf of political organizations.”
Bloomberg’s attorney Jeanne Mirer said in court that the allegations were false, and were having a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of both Bloomberg and her colleagues.
“People who support civil rights and integration have long been called communists,” Mirer told the judge. “That’s why this investigation is so dangerous.”
Teachers, students and other supporters of Bloomberg, many wearing matching black anti-racism T-shirts, lined the walls of the courtroom. At one point, the city’s attorney suggested that the mere presence of so many supporters was proof that the investigation hadn’t had a chilling effect on school staff, prompting murmurs of disapproval from those gathered.
When the hearing adjourned, Bloomberg’s supporters gathered outside the courtroom.
“I’ve worked for her for over a decade,” said Sarah Vega, a special education teacher at the school. “I’ve never seen her furthering any political agenda whatsoever. She fights against racism, but I don’t really consider that partisan politics.”
Maya, 13, an eighth-grader at Park Slope Collegiate, also backs Bloomberg. “It’s just upsetting that she’s being accused of stating her own political views when she’s just stating the facts that racism is here,” she said.
“I don’t see what that has to do with communism,” her mother agreed.
At least one parent at the hearing took a more neutral stance. “So far, I believe the procedures are being conducted fairly and hopefully we’ll have a fair outcome,” said Josh Eckert-Chu, whose son is a sixth-grader at the school.
Judge Paul Gardarphe will rule on Wednesday whether to let the investigation proceed. The city’s Law Department declined to say what the penalty against Bloomberg might be if she is found to have broken any rules.


Monday, May 1, 2017

Flushing High School Principal Tyee Chin Censors the Students and Makes a Very Big Story Even Bigger

It seems to me that Principal Tyee Chin is not a thinking man.

He is in the media for changing grades, and punishing Eileen Ghastin for trying to stop a student after the student threatened to beat her up (Chin found 'probable cause' for termination and re-assigned her, then she had her 3020-a). So, what does he do but censor the student publication?

Oh, I get it. He WANTS media coverage sooooo badly, he will anything, even if it brings ridicule and opposition, as long as he remains in the public eye. He likes it that way.

I put some interesting arguments for and against student speech freedoms at school after the NY POST article on  Flushing HS.  In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988):
"Hazelwood is generally viewed as granting educators considerable latitude to control the content of student publications, if they so for legitimate educational reasons and not out of hostility to particular ideas. Judicial deference to educators under Hazelwood has permitted restrictions on student publications, often without careful scrutiny of the educational rationale offered."

Another side is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969).
10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know
Free Speech Rights of StudentsSchool Speech (First Amendment)
Legal analysis: How far can schools go in limiting student speech online?
Four cases that test reach of student free-speech rights in age of cyberbullying
Supreme Court Student Speech Cases

I hope that most principals across America keep a wide-open door to students who have something to say. They should be heard.

Betsy Combier
 betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Student journalists Julie Chavez (left), Melanie Arevalo, Shelsy Baquis, Jonathan Bravo, Paloma Mendez, Manuel
Peguero and Ainara Hidalgo.


Principal pulls school paper that critiques teachers’ performance
Susan Edelman and melissa Klein, NYPOST, April 30, 2017

Principal Tyee Chin
The principal of Flushing HS is giving these student journalists a lesson in censorship.
Tyee Chin has refused to publish the third issue of the fledgling Flushing Advocate, calling everything in it and a prior issue “negative and disparaging.”
“I will not approve this edition,” Chin declared in an e-mail.
Chin cited a feature that infuriated him: “What Makes a Good Teacher?” which quotes multiple students.
One sophomore commented, “Good teachers help you struggle less and help you get motivated, but to be honest, Flushing High School lacks in those kinds of teachers. Out of my 8 classes, only 3 of my teachers really care.”
Chin was also displeased by the placement of his “Principal’s Corner — a note from Mr. Chin” on Page 4 in the last issue, a student said. “He’s like ‘Give me the front cover’ . . . He got really angry about that.”
Chin’s dictate stunned and angered the students who toiled for weeks on the spring edition. They launched a petition last week, collecting 500 signatures so far, “to bring back our journalistic freedom.”
The edition banned by Chin features a glowing front-page story on 16 Flushing kids who attended a conference of Health Occupation Students of America and “proudly took home nine medals!” The front page also includes a “Vocabulary Corner” with 14 words and definitions.
Among 11 other pieces, Julie Chavez wrote about diabetes, telling how one senior avoided the disease by losing weight and exercising.
Senior Sharon Cheung, the school’s salutatorian, wrote “The Benefits of Advanced Placement,” urging peers to take the challenging courses.
“He has no good reason to ban it,” Cheung told The Post. “Most of the articles are positive. They show the school’s accomplishments.”
Junior Ainara Hidalgo agreed. She wrote how a robotics class can open doors for students, especially girls. “I don’t think that’s negative,” she said.
Junior Paloma Mendez, who wrote the article that offended Chin, said a student newspaper can help improve Flushing High, which is in Mayor de Blasio’s Renewal Program for low-performing schools.
“It teaches you how to be a better writer, how to communicate with people,” she said.
Chris Marzian, the English teacher who serves as the newspaper’s adviser, defended the young journalists: “A student’s First Amendment right shouldn’t end when they walk into a school,” he said.
In an e-mail to The Post, Chin said, “I’m not refusing to print it. I’m scheduling a meeting to discuss the tone of the paper with the teacher.”
He said the teacher “has refused to follow… expectations.” Chin also insisted he has a “legal right to senor (sic) the content” of a student newspaper.


The First Amendment in Schools: Resource Guide: Student Publications


 What role do student publications play in the school setting? The answers to this question may reveal different expectations and goals for student press and literary publications, depending on who is asked. Administrators may view student publications as representing the school in the community at large, or as an adjunct to the English curriculum. Or they may see them as providing opportunities and experiences for students learning how writers, reporters, and editors work, by functioning as they would in real life. Faculty advisors and student authors may see them as an open forum for student views, or as a training opportunity where students learn from their experiences and mistakes acting as reporters, writers, and editors. It is important to understand the various functions student publications can perform in the school setting, to avoid controversies about who controls the content of such publications.
In general, administrators have the authority to decide the purpose and objectives of student publications. If they conclude that journalistic independence is an objective, it is unlikely that courts would interfere with policies to implement this goal. At the same time, courts would also be unlikely to interfere with a determination by school authorities to exercise oversight, as long as they are not trying to suppress dissent or disfavored ideas.
A handful of Supreme Court decisions define the contours of students’ rights and administrative authority in this area. The landmark Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) overturned the suspension of several students for wearing black armbands to school in protest against the Vietnam War, acknowledging that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Under Tinker, student expression would have to threaten substantial disruption of the educational environment to be subject to suppression. Tinker’s applicability to student publications is tempered by two subsequent decisions, however.
Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) upheld the school’s ability to censor student expression on campus that is vulgar, lewd, or obscene. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) upheld the authority of school officials to control content of school publications for educational purposes or to insure that it represents the school accurately and appropriately. These cases define the limits of school authority over student expression and speak to the legality, but not necessarily the wisdom, of speech-restrictive practices and policies.
The Court’s ruling in Hazelwood is generally viewed as granting educators considerable latitude to control the content of student publications, if they so for legitimate educational reasons and not out of hostility to particular ideas. Judicial deference to educators under Hazelwood has permitted restrictions on student publications, often without careful scrutiny of the educational rationale offered. As a result, some states have enacted what are commonly referred to as "anti-Hazelwood laws" to restore student free speech protection.
State "Anti-Hazelwood" Laws: Since 1977, California has had a law on its books protecting student expression. In its present form, this section of the California Education Code, No. 48950, says school districts cannot make or enforce any rule subjecting a high school student to disciplinary sanctions on the basis of speech or other communication that–outside campus–is protected by the First Amendment or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution. Students can take civil action to obtain legal relief and the court can award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action. This does not apply to private religious secondary schools, and nothing prohibits disciplining students for harassment, threats, or intimidation. According to the code, free speech rights are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations.
Five other states–Massachusetts, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas and Arkansas–have enacted anti-Hazelwood legislation since 1988. Student press defenders are pushing for similar laws in other states and advocating other state-level protections. At Oregon’s Brookings Habor High School where student journalists can refuse to publish a newspaper rather than submit to prior review, legislation is pending before the legislature that would protect student newspapers from prior review.
Student articles about drug use, teen sexuality, death, suicide, divorce, and other controversial topics, are most likely to generate censorship controversies. School officials typically seek to censor such articles on the ground that they reflect badly on the school, or that they are inappropriate subjects for students, or that they are offensive to some readers. In one recent situation at Hinsdale Central High School outside Chicago, the principal censored then destroyed a school paper report on school violence. The story "Scared of School," was to be published on the second anniversary of the killings at Columbine High School in Colorado (April 2001). The principal objected to the headline of one story, "Getting a Gun," and to "alarmist" illustrations, including a hooded figure with a gun.
Regardless of whether the principal has the legal authority to suppress a story, it is not always the best course of action. In the Hinsdale case, students published on the Internet, and a local paper editorialized in support of the article and included its Web address. The school board later issued a statement that censorship would only exacerbate the problem of violence in schools. In another recent incident in Wisconsin, a school principal decided to pre-review the student magazine before publication. The students, considering it a forum for the expression of student views, fear that the magazine will lose its personality and appeal, in which case they may decide to publish off-campus.