The officials did not show any intent to allow indiscriminate use by student reporters, editors, or other students, and so were entitled to regulate the paper's contents in any reasonable manner (Hazelwood pp). The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that occurs on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to "lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression" (Hazelwood pp). Thus, educators are not offending First Amendment rights 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," and in this case the school principal acted reasonably in requiring the deletion of the pregnancy article, the divorce article and the other articles that appeared on the same pages (Hazelwood pp). The principal acted from the need to protect the privacy of those students whose intimate concerns were to be revealed in the newspaper, and "the legal, moral, and ethical restrictions imposed upon journalists within a school community"...
Moreover, the principal's decision to delete two pages from the newspaper rather than deleting only on the offending articles or require modification, was reasonable under the circumstances as he understood them (Hazelwood pp).
The dissenting opinion declared that the students who registered for Journalism II expected a civics lesson and to publish a newspaper that was a forum to give students an opportunity to express their view which gaining an appreciation of their rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment and as a student press publication, it accepts all rights implied by the First Amendment (Hazelwood pp).
This case is important because it states that a student publication is not a public forum for student expression as it applies in the First Amendment unless otherwise stated by school policy, and so is subject to censorship by the discretion of school officials.
Works Cited
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. No. 86-836. Supreme Court of the United States. 484 U.S. 260. January 13, 1988.
