We are just thirty miles from the mecca of student and faculty censorship.
I think I am missing something - the SCOTUS decision was in 1998, and a 1994
article says schools started using it immediately. How exactly does a 1994
article know what happens after a 1998 decision?
The decision was actually in '88....This is a nice reminder of
the beginning if the 'PC' movement. This decision was originally (and
still is) used to prevent sexual discussions, profanity, satanic references, and
drug references, just to name a few. The limitations mentioned in the article
are "unintended consequences" but valid restrictions none the less.
Thanks, Maudine for pointing out the actual year of the decision. I was
scratching my head trying to figure out how 1998 was 25 years ago...I don't think this decision is as big a deal as the article tries to
make. It's only reasonable that school publications and functions in which
the school is represented have clear standards about what kinds of writing or
behavior are permitted. Now, if students were being censored off-campus or
officials were digging around in personal belongings for "inappropriate"
materials to confiscate, that would be a completely different matter.I couldn't force the Deseret News or any other publication outlet to
publish my article "Why I Love Satan" (just an example), or something
poorly written or laced with profanity now could I? Would that mean I am being
Er, "the 25th anniversary of the 1998 Supreme Court "Hazelwood"
decision . . . ." Math error -- Not a good opening for an article about
education.I suspect the author would agree with public schools
censoring student speech that promotes promiscuity, underage alcohol use, and
ridicule of teachers or school administrators. She is highly critical of
censorship when it crosses into areas that comport with her belief system or
views. Yet there are some the school communities who support limiting speech on
topics that the author would promote. There are problems with letting the
majority draw the line on government sponsored speech anywhere, including in
Abandoning the principles the Supreme Court announced in Hazelwood School
District v. Kuhlmeier would have the [I suppose] unintended effect of making
sure no school-financed or sanctioned publication was ever again published.