A Violation of Rights

Every weekday, students go to school to receive an education. But this was not the case for Hazelwood East High School students in the Journalism II course. Rrecently, they learned the First Amendment\\\'s guaranteed rights-freedom speech and of the press-does not include school students in their class which produces the school newspaper. They were denied their right to learn when a principal demanded a removal of two stories from the newspaper. Reason being for these actions, was that school officials may impose restraints on students\\\' speech in activities that are \\\"an integral part of the school\\\'s educational function.\\\" One story described unnamed Hazelwood students\\\' experiences with pregnancy, and the other story discussed the impact of divorse on students. Neither imposed any threats directly to students, or to their right of learning. Does this decision truly hinder or preserve the \\\"educational function\\\" of the Journalism II course? Not only does the court decision deny students\\\' rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, it also hinders the educational function of journalism as well as prevent potentially helpful information from helping students.

The Court of Appeals believes the decision to be a violation of the student\\\'s First Amendment rights, which states, \\\"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise...abridging the freedom of the press....\\\" Furthermore, neither of the articles disrupted classwork nor invaded the rights of others, which is the reason for school officials\\\' special editorial right \\\"to impose restraints on students\\\' speech activities that are...a part of school.\\\" Therefore, the students were not disrupting the \\\"educational function\\\" of school, but were applying their writing skills to report \\\"bad news.\\\" Reporting bad news is just as important as reporting the good. To restrict journalism to only good news not only restricts student\\\'s constitutional rights, but restricts the purpose of learning. Thus, the Supreme Court\\\'s support for school intolerance of \\\"student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, and that Journalism II is a laboratory situation in which students apply skills they have learned,\\\" is both contradictory and unconstitutional. In conclusion, such censorship does not further the curriculum purposes of a student newspaper.

Likewise, not only were the students in journalism denied their rights to potentially helpful information that would have assisted in the learning of their society. This knowledge, such as the understanding of teen pregnancy within their school and insight of the effects of divorce on students, would not have caused disruption, but would have benefited Hazelwood students. Hearing from fellow students who have experienced pregnancy would help other students who are facing a decision about pregnancy. Still, it may have persuaded students to change their emotionally harmful actions toward those who are pregnant. Furthermore, it might have caused others to realize all aspects of teen pregnancy, and become better defended against pregnancy by increasing their understanding of what teen pregnancy is like. Maybe some students would have stopped taking risks concerning pregnancy, or start making more educated decisions on how to deal with and what to do about pregnancy. In that same way, a fellow student may have received helpful insight about the effects of parent divorce on their children. It may have given students a better understanding of their emotions, which might help in dealing with divorced parents. Thus, the court decisions in opposition of furthering the learning of students, whether the lesson be about society of the \\\"basic educational mission of the Journalism II course,\\\" contradicts the purposeof education--to teach young people skills for surviving the working world as well as life. Essentially, all of Hazelwood\\\'s students were denied a moral right to information about their school, and the insight that may have helped with decisions concerning their personal experienes.

Allowing school officials to delete these two articles that were not disruptive to neither classwork nor rights of others, violated the authors\\\' constitutional rights. Furthermore, it denies Hazelwood students of their right to school\\\'s educational function.