skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 163093 Find in a Library
Title: Hazelwood Progeny: Autonomy and Student Expression in the 1990's
Journal: St. John's Law Review  Volume:69  Issue:3-4  Dated:(Summer-Fall 1995)  Pages:379-419
Author(s): B C Hafen; J O Hafen
Date Published: 1995
Page Count: 41
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Autonomy ideology and its application to the rights of children in public schools is examined, with emphasis on judicial decisions since the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.
Abstract: The Hazelwood decision held that school officials have broad authority to define and supervise student education, including the right to regulate the content of school- sponsored student newspapers. Most judges now read the Hazelwood case as strengthening the authority of public schools toward the ultimate goal of actual autonomy, by limiting children's short-term legal autonomy. Hazelwood distinguishes between tolerance and endorsement and makes clear that requiring schools to tolerate a student's offensive but nondisruptive personal expression differs from the extreme of requiring schools to promote student expression that distorts the existing educational order within the protected sphere of school-sponsored activities. When that happens, a school loses the institutional authority and discretion it must have to carry out its educational mission. This distinction also helps students and the public understand that just because the law requires tolerance of certain conduct, that conduct does not enjoy official endorsement. The Hazelwood decision and the earlier Tinker decision together offer a needed example of constitutional reasoning that has potential applications well beyond the context of student rights. Footnotes
Main Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
Index Term(s): Censorship; Freedom of speech; Freedom of the press; Juvenile court jurisdiction; Rights of minors; School discipline; School security; Youth development
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.