It’s easier to use ChatGPT than actually think of ideas for our research papers. It’s tacky to talk politics, especially when we are all so polarized and we don’t want to make anyone mad. It’s too difficult to actually engage with controversial subject matter so we just don’t. When students can pick and choose when to engage in these subjects, they will never be truly involved with the issues that will directly affect their lives and futures.
This type of thought suppression is happening at the policy level, too. English and history teachers must dance around banned books and changes to curricula to teach to the test. Soon the tools to question, often found within our public education, may become even harder to access due to the President-elect’s proposition to dissolve the Department of Education, a plan which may make quality education even more sparse.
With the decreasing focus on critical thinking in education and our social spheres, student press seems to be one of the last bastions of real, unadulterated student expression. But, this expression is not guaranteed at a policy level, especially not in Texas.
To understand the stakes today, it is crucial to first understand the history behind the freedoms and restrictions of the student press. In the 1969 landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines, in which students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court ruled that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Under Tinker, so long as their speech is not dangerous or disruptive, the student press may maintain its constitutionally protected freedoms.
However, the 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case restricted protections for students, as the court ruled in favor of administrators who removed articles that they deemed inappropriate for a high school publication.
The Hazelwood precedent allows administrators to suppress content in school-sponsored publications deemed inconsistent with educational goals. In practice, this precedent has created an environment where student journalists often lack the license to report on controversial issues, limiting their ability to develop critical thinking skills and civic engagement, including in our own district, where The Tribune’s coverage has been stifled.
Under Hazelwood, many states do not have protection for student journalists. In fact, only 14 states have “New Voices” laws, spearheaded by the Student Press Law Center, to protect student journalists following the Tinker precedent, alongside the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania which have both implemented codes to protect student press. As a Hazelwood state, Texas does not have a “New Voices” law, leaving student journalists vulnerable to censorship without clear legal protections. In schools across the state, students have limited avenues for challenging editorial decisions made by administrators, curtailing their ability to report meaningfully on issues that directly affect them and their peers.
We recognize the concerns about maintaining order and educational goals in schools, but censoring the press is not the solution. By supporting Tinker’s principles, Texas can encourage responsible reporting and engagement without stifling students’ voices. We urge the state of Texas to adopt a “New Voices” law, recognize school publications as a First Amendment right and protect the youth voice. This legislation would ensure that student journalists in Texas have the opportunity to explore important and sometimes controversial topics without fear of administrative retaliation or censorship.
Moreover, we call on our local governing bodies to support the rights of student journalists, even in the absence of state legislation. Schools are intended to be places of learning and exploration, and part of that education involves learning to express ideas, ask difficult questions and tackle challenging topics. Further, by having a platform for all ideas, even polarized students can find common ground through their open expression.
If we are to be part of a future where young people are active forces in society, we must be allowed the right to engage with the issues affecting our lives. Now more than ever, we must reestablish Tinker’s promise and push back against the restrictive Hazelwood precedent. We ask for protection to think critically, to analyze our surroundings and to challenge ourselves to care about the world around us.
