Creating a First Amendment understanding is the best way to avoid problems
by Randy Swikle
A system of checks and balances is essential in a free society. It holds those in authority accountable.

In the hierarchy of a public school, the journalism teacher is more vulnerable than most regarding issues of accountability. That’s because
(1) her position in the system of checks and balances is precarious and lonely, and
(2) her task of supporting the First Amendment as student publication adviser often lacks popular support.

Here is the dilemma. As an agent of the school system, the journalism teacher is subordinate to the principal and is expected to maintain a cooperative relationship with that supervisor. As an advocate for students, the teacher has a duty to support their right to express their perspectives in the student newspaper.

When an autocratic principal has an arbitrary attitude that collides with a student journalist’s right to express himself, the publication adviser is likely caught in the middle.

If the principal demands censorship but the adviser knows the law
protects the student’s right to expression, what is the adviser to do?

Does the adviser champion the rights of the student, or does she yield her sense of what is legal and right to placate her supervisor? Let’slook at the options.

Option No. 1: Tell the principal that his censorship is wrong and that she will fight his decision to the highest level of authority.
This option may ignite an adversarial relationship between the principal and the publication adviser that will last long after the
immediate issue is resolved. Furthermore, the administrator may lose trust in the adviser, wondering if the adviser is using the student press to advance her own personal agenda. The adviser, likewise, may lose trust in the administrator, wondering if the censorship confrontation may affect her teaching evaluation.

Option No. 2: Accept the principal’s censorship and tell students the principles of democracy the adviser teaches in class are not applicable in school. This option abdicates the adviser’s responsibility to oppose a bad decision and to protect the principal, the students, and the school from bad public relations in the community, cynicism among the learners, and hypocrisy in the school mission. It further puts the adviser in jeopardy for not contesting unlawful censorship in an arena where she has supervisory responsibility. The dilemma puts the adviser in a precarious position; whatever her choice, she may face undesirable consequences. And she has few inherent allies within the school to support her. Even her own colleagues may not rally to her side if they find the censored expression disagreeable to their own attitudes.

For everyone’s benefit, the best solution is to avoid the predicament in the first place. Make sure school authorities truly understand the First Amendment rights of students. Get them to acknowledge that within the parameters of law, the students control the content of their publications. Agree that students can question authority, pursue controversial topics and express unpopular perspectives consistent with guidelines of the Tinker and Hazelwood Supreme Court rulings.

Most importantly, agree that even though they may rank at the bottom of the school hierarchy, students are a real part of the democratic process. They may not have as much clout in the decision-making process, but in the system of checks and balances, students, too, can hold school authorities accountable.

The best way to relieve the dilemma of the journalism teacher/publication adviser is to educate the educators as well as the students. A better understanding of the First Amendment and its value to the school community will benefit everyone.

An effective system of checks and balances requires an awareness of the law. In the context of scholastic journalism, the Student Press Law Center is a respected resource for legal advice. Officials of SPLC may be reached at 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209; (703-807-1904).