Superintendent orders high school newspapers seized
By The Associated Press
12.23.02
WOOSTER, Ohio — School officials in a district where the policy is to allow students freedom of speech confiscated the latest edition of the high school newspaper before it could be released.
Superintendent David Estrop said the Wooster High School newspapers were taken on the advice of lawyers who said the publication contained inaccuracies and was potentially libelous.
But student editors believe the copies of The Wooster Blade were seized on Dec. 19 because of an article that said athletes and the daughter of a school board member consumed alcohol at a party.
Principal James Jackson said a teacher told him about a possible confidentiality problem in a story about students and student athletes who drank alcohol at the November party.
Federal law forbids schools from naming students who face disciplinary action without parents' permission, Jackson said. Violating privacy rights could leave the school vulnerable to lawsuits, he said.
Also, at least two students said they were misquoted with statements that "attributed to them acts of misconduct and potentially acts of criminal behavior," Estrop said on Dec. 21.
The student journalists disagreed.
According to a policy under "Student Publication Rights" on the Wooster City School District's Web site, an "unfettered student press" is essential and "student journalists shall be afforded protection against prior review and/or censorship."
It says that freedom does not extend to material that is obscene or defamatory, or would disrupt school activities.
"I feel very privileged to have an open-forum policy, but personally I am disappointed that it has been violated," said Darcie Draudt, 17, a senior and editor of The Wooster Blade.
She said about 4,500 issues of the biweekly paper were ready for distribution in the school of 1,400 students and in the community on the afternoon of Dec. 19 when Jackson unlocked the room where the papers were stored. He took a copy, then returned with school custodians and confiscated the papers, Draudt said.
Estrop said the newspaper's adviser was unable to review the issue's contents before deadline because she had been called away on a family matter.
Vasanth Ananth, 17, a senior and the Blade's opinion page editor, said the paper also included an editorial questioning whether it was appropriate for school board members to be involved in reviewing the punishment of their own children.
"I don't even care about the editorial," Estrop said on Dec. 21.
The students could republish the issue later with a version of the article that does not contain the legally troubling information, he said.
Mike Hiestand, an attorney for the Student Press Law Center, in Arlington, Va., said he reviewed the reporting at the student editors' request and saw nothing in the Blade that violated libel laws.
"It's very good reporting," Hiestand said. "It's just another one of those cases of school officials wanting nothing but happy news in the newspaper and abusing their authority."
Whether school administrators can insist on prior review of a students' publication has been a hot issue in high school journalism since 1988, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled limits can be set on the free-press rights of high school students.
The case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, involved students at a suburban St. Louis high school who were prevented by their principal from publishing certain articles.