The 1970's:
10 Years Of Turmoil
In The High School Press

[This article originally appeared in the January 25, 1980 edition of LNS.]

By Keith Hefner

In 1968 the Supreme Court ruled that students did have constitutional rights, and thousands of them interpreted that to mean the right to express their views in school newspapers, official or otherwise. Most school administrators and newspaper advisors felt differently. And the stage was set for a decade-long battle over control of the press-a battle that is still being waged today. For example:

• A federal judge in New York recently ruled that an underground paper was not protected by the First Amendment, even though it was distributed off school grounds and caused no disruption of school. The Appeals court later unanimously overturned that decision.
  
  
• Many high school newspaper advisers are coming to the defense of their editors (and some have been fired); yet the majority still seem to favor censorship of the high school press.
  
  
• The high school underground press, after a steep decline in the 1970's, seems to have leveled off at around 200 papers nationwide, and the majority of First Amendment cases are now filed by official high school newspapers.

As these examples suggest, there are contradictory trends in the high school press. On the one hand, students have won most of the important court battles and thus greatly expanded their legal rights. On the other hand, administrators and lower court judges are often engaged in obstinate "civil disobedience" of those laws, thus confirming the findings of a 1974 study which declared that "censorship overshadows the achievements of the high school press."

High School Underground Papers
Not A Thing Of The Past

The rise of the underground press in the late 1960's, of course, was the first and loudest shot fired in the battle for press freedom in the high school. Though not nearly as numerous as they were 10 years ago, underground papers are still a thorn in the side of hundred of administrators, from New York City's Stuyvesant High, to places like Hometown, Illinois, Columbus, Ohio, and Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Royd Buchele edits the 5%Press, one of Ann Arbor's two alternative papers. The name 5%Press was chosen, Buchele explains, because he estimated that only five percent of the students would read articles about Iran, gay rights, punk rock and student unions. He set out with a modest press run of 200 copies (in a school of 2300). But the paper soon proved to be more popular than the official school paper (the Optimist) and circulation mushroomed to 1250 copies by the tenth issue.

"I certainly didn't expect to gain this large a readership when we started," said Buchele. "We're now read by so many students that I have to humanize the character 'Super Jock' in our comic strip. Maybe it will have some effect on the jocks who read the paper."

Buchele is more sophisticated than many editors of 10 years ago. He anticipated censorship moves by the administration and when principal Milo White suggested that the paper be distributed from one pre-arranged spot rather than passed out freely in the halls, the staff responded quickly.

"We explained (to Dr. White) that he was putting himself in a bad position; that many people would understand and oppose this repression of the free press," Buchele recalled. "We also mentioned that the Ann Arbor News was interested in a story, and that many parents and teachers would support us in a censorship fight. Dr. White had a sudden change of heart."

Faculty Advisers-Censor Or Be Censored

Another significant change since the 1960's is that newspaper advisers are no longer automatically pawns of the school administration. Growing numbers of advisers are coming to the support of student editors, often at the risk of their jobs.

J. William Downs, adviser to the Smoke Signal at Pascack Valley High School in Hillsdale, New Jersey, was one of those whose job was in jeopardy. He described the problem in a recent article for the Student Press Law Center Report.

"You know the game. It's probably played in your own school. The school establishment tells the adviser, "your job is to censor student's writing. You don't have to be clever about it. If you want to be clever about it, go ahead. Do it in a way so that no one will know you are doing it. Just make sure the students don't publish anything we don't like."

Though many advisers are willing to stand behind their editors in a controversy, probably the majority are not. Robin Hadfield, a masters degree candidate at the University of Nebraska, polled advisers and administrators in that state. Twenty-nine percent of the advisors polled agreed strongly that some censorship is necessary part of their job, and an additional 39% agreed somewhat.

An even more widespread problem is self-censorship. Many school newspaper reporters have been conditioned to believe that certain subjects are unacceptable and unconsciously reject them. In addition, the limited and isolated role that young people play in American society necessarily limits their view of what is important. High school editors often don't have to be forced to write insipid articles about football and homecoming. They think that's all they're supposed to write about.

Expanded Rights, Expanded Interests

The Student Press Service of Washington, DC is one of several organizations working to broaden the horizons of high school journalists. They publish an 8-page bi-weekly news service which contains articles on topics like youth unemployment, birth control and standardized testing-not standard fare for the high school press. Each issue has suggestions for "localizing" articles, such as examining tests used in the students own district, or interviewing pregnant teens. Editor Eric Seaborg feels the Service is beginning to have an effect:

"The trend in the high school press is toward an emphasis on content, rather than graphics and layout. Looking over the papers we receive I see that the Service is certainly nudging them toward more substantive reporting."

The Student Press Service is working to improve official school newspaper, and the under-ground press exercises its influence from completely outside the system. But there is a third and growing "middle road" in youth communication-the independent , city-wide youth newspaper which, while independent and critical of the schools, is not as radical as the underground press.

City-wide papers have sprung up in Tuscon, Chicago, Wilmington Delaware, and other cities. They are usually funded in part by adult organizations, but ones with a greater commitment to the freedom of the press than the public schools. Chicago's New Expression is the largest youth edited newspaper in the country. It receives some funding from the Robert E. Kennedy Foundation, and has adult advisers, but is produced by a staff of 25-30 people.

"The paper has conceived as a way to get inner-city teens involved in discussions of public policy by establishing a way for them to speak to a large numbers of people," says adviser Craig Trygstad. "Our goal was to develop a respected paper; one that was viewed as a credible source of information, and one that would be read by young people."

In three years, monthly circulation has grown to 60,000 copies, distributed in 90 high schools, stores and community centers. The paper has achieved several goals that have eluded youth newspapers virtually everywhere else: it is independent of public school control; it has a large number of Black and Hispanic staff members (90%); it is on the road to self-sufficiency; it is respected as a source of information on young people's views and concerns.

Another organization that has played a crucial role in youth journalism during the past five years is the Student Press Law Center in Washington, DC. Because of the piecemeal expansion of student press rights in the 1970's, few people, least of all the journalists themselves, knew of the dozens of court decisions affirming their rights. They were therefore unable to assert their rights, and often fell victim to administrators' legal threats.

The Student Press Law Center changed all that. They monitored significant press rights cases around the country. They published a handbook on legal rights for student journalists. And they took some cases to court themselves. The result has been tremendous. Fifty students a month contact the center for information on their rights. And it is now more difficult for administrators to call a students bluff on a "libelous" article, or exercise prior restraint.

The importance of these developments is that young people-a group without legal and political rights of adult citizens-can never effectively organize to fight for their rights without a means of communication. Though the movement for youth control of youth media is still in its early stages, it seems to be gaining momentum and solidifying earlier victories. And though it hasn't happened yet, it probably won't be long before many high school journalists are writing about nuclear power, the draft, and racism and sexism in the schools, right alongside articles about the football game and the homecoming elections.