Page 2AThe Battalion/Friday, January 22,1988
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Sue Krenek, Editor
Daniel A. LaBry, Managing Editor
Mark Nair, Opinion Page Editor
Amy Couvillon, City Editor
Robbyn L. Lister and
Becky Weisenfels,
News Editors
Loyd Brumfield, Sports Editor
Sam B. Myers, Photo Editor
Editorial Policy
I he BtiUiilion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa
per operated as a comnnmiu service to Texas A&.M and
Brvan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in 1 he linUnhon are those of the
editorial board or the author, and do not necessarih rep
resent the opinions of Texas AALM administrators, fac
ulty or the Board of Regents.
The Hulliihon also serves as a laboratory newspaper
for students in reporting, editing and photographs
classes within the Department of Journalism
The li.million is published Monday through Friday
during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holidas
and examination periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.4-1 pet semester. $34.62
per school sear and $46.44 pet full scat Adscrtising
rates furnished on request.
Out address: The B.muhon. 240 Reed McDonald.
Texas A&M University. College Station, TX 77843-1 111.
Second class postage paid at College Station. IX
77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to J'hc B.mill
ion. 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M Unisersiis. Col
lege Station I X 77843-4 111
Saluting excellence
In hopes of recognizing student, f aculty and staff excellence.
The Battalion will begin a new feature, Salutes, next week.
Salutes will provide a listing, in much the same form as
What’s Up, of Aggies who have received honors or awards.
Space is limited, and listings will he taken on a first-come, f irst-
served basis. Anyone who wants to he listed for a scholarship,
promotion, retirement, honor dr award — should come by the
Battalion office, 216 Reed McDonald, and fill out an informa
tion form. Submissions cannot he taken over the phone.
— The Battalion Editorial Board
Hazelwood decision
In 1983, a high
school principal
f' r o m the Ha
zelwood School
District in M is-
souri removed two
articles dealing
with divorce and
teen pregnancy
from the schoo 1
newspaper. In his
judgment, the ar
ticles were objec
tionable and potentially disruptive to
the school. Feeling that their constitu
tional rights had been violated, the stu
dents took their case to court.
On Jan. 13, 1988 the Supreme Court
ruled 5-3 in favor of the principal, argu
ing that a principal holds a position sim
ilar to the publisher of a private publica
tion. who has the final word on whether
an article will run. In Justice Byron
White's majority opinion, “A school
must be able to set high standards for
the student speech that is disseminated
under its auspices . . . and may refuse to
disseminate student speech that does
not meet those standards.”
Fearful voices have decried this deci-
son as a threat to our First Amendment
freedoms.
If one were to judge by the emotion
of those cries, one would think that the
darkness of totalitarian censorship was
poised to descend upon our nation,
blotting out Liberty’s torch forever. At
very least, one would have little doubt
that the first, irretractahle step down the
dark road to tyranny had been taken.
The voices cry, “This is a serious in-
fringment of the First Amendment that
sets a bad precedent. A principal cen
sored the school paper. We all know,
censorship is bad. What happens when
principals all over the country start
trampling students’ rights? The petty ty
rants! Is that any way to teach students
about the freedom of the press? What
happens when colleges . . .?”
Perhaps we should question our basis
for judging that all censorship is bad.
Rather than having any rational
grounds for this judgment, most ol us
are conditioned to an irrational, knee-
jerk response when we hear the word
“censorship.” Immediately our condi
tioning shouts, “It’s bad!” and we pro
ceed mindlessly on our way.
I bis sort of analysis, though emotion-
Brian
Frederick
Opinion
'it?:
won’t threaten press freedorc;
ally stimulating, is not of much value for
analyzing the Court decision.
important issue at hand — their educa
tion.
The First Amemdment states: “Con
gress shall make no law . . . abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press.”
Does not the Hazelwood decision estab
lish government censorship? After all,
the schools are state-owned, which in a
sense makes the principal a state of f icial.
Thus, for a j:>r inti pal to remove articles
from the school jiajier is a clear case of
state censorship.
But are not high school students citi
zens who have the same constitutional
rights as the rest of us? Court decisions
over the last twenty vears have consis
tently upheld this contention and have
extended considerable protection f rom
censorship to students.
I bis is a nice idea, but it overlooks ba
sic realities that demand a different ap-
pn
)ach.
This line of reasoning is specious.
1 he freedom of the press is not abso
lute. Legal guidelines exist to regulate
the press; there are laws against libel,
obscenity, and incitement of rebellion.
Such restraints serve to maintain a f ree
and stable society. Without them, anar
chy would daily threaten our freedom
and safety.
Most high school students are legally
minors: thev can’t vote, drink, or be
drafted, and normally do not stand trial
as adults. Nearly all are dependents.
Their perspectives and experience in
the world is necessarily quite limited. To
give adult freedoms to children who
lack the maturity to handle them is det
rimental to their development.
11 1
nr n
WtuU
top u
the] lie
J 1 h
right to demand that someonei7 t o(>0
the costs for our expression. his| ca
wee
beautv of the Hazeh«>p er [
that it brginx to recti!' top h
c r.ti sol ni esjxni.sible jiui "A|ist
mai i
Frii
help end die* disgraceful sight(i!'fi||"]
c hci s and administrators bein^ 0( i. 0
n > ac quiesc c to the siirill clt , maiK!| fx r
dents loi self-expression. It shin {*et>n
enable students to accjuire the d
needed to appreciate their
and to use (hem i esponsiblv.
The
sion is
twenty
tivism, restoring a semblance
tor authorits in om schools
Stair:
tional
1 hen at least thc‘\ will be ita
tomimmicaic to the rest of tisinl
ate fashion whatever ideas m
stumble upon.
A greater restraint in press freedom
is needed for secondary students than
for the adult press. The purpose of the
schools is the production of literate
young Americans. While our children
are in school it is vital that they concen
trate on their education. Frying to ad
dress the problems of their schools and
the world bv delving into risque issues
can only distract students from the most
Furthermore, students are not in a
postilion analogous to the* private press
The resources they use to publish are
owned bv the* schools and ultimatelv In
the community. The schools can rea
sonably expect that student expression
conform to school standards.
In the* f uror surrounding ilj
zelwood decision, one fact remai
glee ted. I he press that really™
this country — the* commerca
vatelv-owned press — remainsi
from government restriction ai
While othet nations groan undei
mandated < c nsoi ship, our pre"
protected b\ the* Fiist Amendnw
the Hazelwood decisions
threaten that freedom in theslii
c
p
While we may all have the freedom to
express our views, we do not have the
Brian Frederick is a senior histi
Russian major and a columnistli.
Battalion.
S'
J 6
Hazelwood a clear and present danger to pres
About the most
radical thing I did
in high school was
write a nasty edito-
r i a 1 a b out the
school dress code.
The principal
didn’t much like it,
but we printed it.
There .are many
people, among
them professional
journalist s w h o
should know better, who think I
shouldn’t have been able to use a school-
funded forum to criticize a school jool-
icy.
These are the people who support
the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ha
zelwood case.
Hazelwood Flast High School is, I
imagine, much the same as other high
schools. Students go to class, to basket
ball games, and out on dates. Some of
them also come from broken homes, use
drugs, and become pregnant. The stu
dent journalists at Hazelwood rejjorted
on some of the darker side — what it’s
like to be a pregnant teen and how di
vorce af fects teens.
The articles were not obscene. T hey
did not advocate violence or promote
disruption of schooling. In the best
journalistic tradition, the students tried
to provide an accurate picture of prob
lems that have the potential to wreck
lives. Still, Principal Robert E. Reynolds
ordered them pulled from the Spec
trum, the school newspaper.
Reynolds’ concerns were legitimate:
He feared the students in the story on
pregnancy might he identified from the
article. He thought students acted un
fairly in allowing a student to criticize
her father’s behavior during a divorce
without allowing him to respond. All ed
itors, student or professional, must face
such problems. They can be solved
through good editing, something the
school should have been teaching.
The Supreme Court ruled that Rey
nolds didn’t violate the student’s consti
tutional rights. This paves the way for
an educational system in which schools
disregard the teaching of good journa
lism (which is, after all, a difficult task)
in favor of the simplest solution of all:
censorship.
The court ruled students have no
right to demand school funding to pre
sent their ideas, that activities bearing
the school’s imprimatur can be censored
without infringing on student rights.
Students’ personal expression, the court
said, is still protected.
The court used three arguments to
justify censorship. The first, that educa
tors must control the curriculum and
functioning of the schools, was ad
dressed and solved in Tinker v. Des
Moines, a landmark student rights case.
In Tinker, the court ruled that student
expression was protected as long as it
did not “materially disrupt” the educa
tional process. Hazelwood says adminis
trators can censor any expression in
consistent with the “basic mission” of
the school.
This language monkeys with the law
in a dangerous way. Tinker provided
an easily identifiable standard, “mate
rially disruptive.” Hazelwood estab
lishes a standard that is murky at best,
one that depends upon a principal s
subjective idea of his school’s “basic mis
sion.' It is a standard that is certain to
increase censorship and, with it, law
suits.
The court also said schools must be
able to distance themselves from stu
dent views they don’t share. This is a
valid point, but censorship is not the an
swer. Disclaimers for school-funded
areas of expression provide an already-
used way to provide distance while still
respecting rights.
Two of the court’s concerns, then, al
ready are provided for. The third, that
students must be shielded from objec
tionable viewpoints and sensitive sub
jects. is utter nonsense.
A school’s “basic mission” must be to
educate its students well. When students
confront troublesome issues responsi-
blv, as die editors of the Spectrum did,
thev learn. A school that prohibits this
f ree and open exchange ol ideas plays
havoc with the intellectual development
of its students. I lazelwood lets school of
ficials censor not only the student press
but also theater productions and other
areas of expression. Is this the message
we want to give future generations?
That only “suitable” thought is per
mitted?
In the area of journalism, Hazelwood
is likely to produce students cowed by
the constant presence of a censor. Pro
fessional journalists, as many have been
quick to point out, are ruled by their
publisher s whims. The publisher may
in turn may bow to economic pressure,
avoiding negative coverage for a com
pany that advertises heavily.
Such pressures interfere with the real
function of journalism — to tell readers
the truth about issues. In profcl
journalism, these pi ( ssures lallii
category of sad hut true facts*
Journalists fight them as best thev
Student journalists now h;i
freedom to be idealistic. to learn
lism as it should be. Hazelw
(each them at an early age to bo"
pressures, to compromise, to gi'|
those who would corrupt thetrul
sanitize the* issues. When agenerfe'\^
journalists loses its ideals, eu
served bv those peojdesuffers.
And for those who doubtthedffi
will harm good journalism and go*
ucation, 1 offer the comments®
current editor of the Spectrum.
“I am not concerned aboutthn| !
decision," she said. “It won'taffedH
“You see, we haven’t |)rinte|i|
thing controversial since then."
Sue Krenek is a senior journals
jor and editor oEThe Battalion.
BLOOM COUNTY
by BerRe Breatb
IP UKE TV APOLOGIZE
FOK YESTEKPAYO
VIOLENT 0JT3UK6T,
0PU5. IT m5 VERY
UNLIKE ME...
PUT IM ATRAIPI GET
EMOTIONAL WHEN I WINK OF
THE WORLP'5 MOST POWERFUL
NATION FEING OUT-PERFORMER
IN SPACE PY A 1901 CENTURY
SOCIETY THAT ST7U- ISN’T
CAPABLE OF
ONE...
pecem
CLOCK ^AKF^
fifiPIO/t fukkThat/
* ANP VOPKA /
OLIVER ?...