Student journalists deserve protections in State College and beyond | Opinion
Feb. 27 is Student Press Freedom Day, a day to recognize student journalists and advocate for greater press freedom. This day falls during Scholastic Journalism Week, a week dedicated to supporting student journalists’ impact on their communities.
Journalism allows one to be not only a storyteller, but a changemaker. Students often bring progressive and insightful perspectives to the stories of our schools and communities. For example, in 2023, student journalists in Amherst, MA earned recognition for their comprehensive coverage of corruption and transphobia in a local middle school.
As much as student journalists can create and support change, restrictions limiting their ability to do so are rampant. At Conestoga High School in Pennsylvania, their principal tried to restrict the publication of a “senior destination” spread, and made threatening statements about the faculty adviser’s job security to students involved. The principal’s demand ultimately drew enough attention and condemnation to cause a reversal, but situations like these typically occur without media coverage or public comment.
Two notable Supreme Court cases define the student journalist experience. Tinker vs. Des Moines in 1969 recognized the right to First Amendment protections in public schools, protecting speech unless it creates a “material and substantial disruption to normal school activities.”
Conversely, Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988) indicates that school-sponsored student media can be censored for “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” This ruling created a legal justification for censorship and other restrictions of student media, significantly limiting scholastic press freedoms.
Since Hazelwood, no landmark cases have come before the Supreme Court to help recover the earlier protections provided by Tinker. Consequently, school administrations in many U.S. states have the authority to restrict the content of student publications, whether through prior review, where administrators can review content before publishing; prior restraint, where administrators can strike and change content prior to publishing; or via retaliation against students and advisers. These actions limit the ability of student journalists to effectively share their voices, as truth can be compromised for the sake of school image.
Where does State College Area School District stand in all of this?
This fall, State High’s Lions’ Digest editorial board took a closer look at our editorial policies and, in this process, consulted with the Student Press Law Center. We learned that since our school district has no student media policy, we would have no formal protections or recourse if censorship or retaliation were to occur. More alarmingly, there is nothing guiding our scholastic press rights — no guarantee of freedom or recognition of limitations.
The threat of censorship has undoubtedly influenced our publication. Our administration’s use of prior review and prior restraint has a ripple effect on our content and staff. Our classroom atmosphere is clouded by self-censorship, with writers afraid to take on “difficult” or “risky” articles out of fear about how those topics could be received—whether by the administration or student body.
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics asks us to seek the truth and report, however, when we struggle to take on uncomfortable or controversial news topics, are we truly upholding this?
SCASD has the opportunity to become a leader in Pennsylvania. Protecting and supporting student journalists goes hand in hand with the creation of a district-level policy to provide SCASD student journalists and advisers with a clear understanding of our freedoms and our limitations. Explicitly knowing what we can and cannot do will allow us to do more.
However, effective protection extends beyond our district through a set of multi state-level legislation known collectively as “New Voices.” The legislation aims to reverse the effects of Hazelwood by protecting students against censorship, prior restraint, undue publishing delays, and retaliation against advisers. New Voices is nonpartisan, protecting scholastic journalism programs.
While New Voices is present in 18 states, Pennsylvania is not one of them. In the previous legislative session, New Voices-aligned HB 1309 and SB 622 were introduced, but never passed. With a new session occurring, this legislation must be reintroduced and enacted.
This week, I ask you to express support for New Voices legislation in Pennsylvania. SPLC has a helpful script for contacting legislators that can be modified depending on your connection to student journalism.
Until there are sufficient guidelines protecting student journalists, our power of the press is limited to the people in power around us.