ERIC Number: ED327877
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1990-Dec
Reference Count: 0
How Advisers View Changes in the High School Press in the Post-Hazelwood Era.
In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, The United States Supreme Court ruled that school administrators "need not tolerate" student speech deemed inconsistent with a school's educational mission. To study the effects of the ruling, a 36-question survey was mailed to a random sample of just under 1,600 American public high school English/Journalism departments. Questions addressed the following issues: demographic information; each school's newspaper and its purpose and content; school policy about content; changes in content since the Hazelwood decision; the type of prepublication review carried out; censorship; and student-adviser conflict. There was no majority position on the purpose of the newspaper, but nearly two-thirds of respondents identified the paper as an open forum for student speech that was not libelous or obscene or did not advocate violence. Little change in school administrators' treatment of the papers as a result of the Hazelwood decision was reported. Over half of respondents indicated that advisers objected to student stories most often because they were seen as unfair or unbalanced. The findings suggest that the Hazelwood decision was not the disaster many people in journalism education feared, and that student press freedom can co-exist with the Supreme Court ruling. (Fifty tables are included; a sample questionnaire is attached.) (SG)
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers; Reports - Research; Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: N/A
Sponsor: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.; Southwest Missouri State Univ., Springfield.
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Advisor Role; Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier
Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Secondary Education Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (Tampa, FL, December 1990).