Victory! High school clears publication of stalled student articles after FIRE’s intervention

Peruse stories produced by high school student journalists for The Torch at Pine View School in Sarasota, Florida, and you’ll find articles detailing walkouts, the importance of voting, and criticism of public officials.

Torch staffers Ava Lenerz and Alex Lieberman wanted to publish articles on those same topics. But they soon ran into problems with the administration. The difference between their pieces and others? The others weren’t critical of the school board.

Pine View principal Stephen Covert paused the publication of Lenerz’s and Lieberman’s articles on Jan. 28. To justify his censorship, Covert produced a factually inaccurate report created by artificial intelligence listing the “pedagogical” reasons for the rejection. While students are surely discouraged from using AI to do their homework, it appears that rule didn’t apply to the Pine View School principal. 

That AI-generated report claimed the students’ pieces were biased against the school board. But that accusation was based on factual errors. The report claimed Lieberman’s coverage of the school district’s resolution to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement demonstrated “source selection bias,” asserting that “nearly all quoted voices” were students opposed to the board’s action, while board members were “absent or minimal” and had “no substantive board voice.” But Lieberman’s reporting, obtained through an open records request, revealed that the piece contained a significant number of direct quotes from the school board member who proposed the resolution. 

In another internal report Covert drafted to further justify censorship, Covert again relied on claims that Lieberman’s piece showed bias, writing that it “only include[d] student voices opposing the resolution and present[ed] no documented attempts to interview or include students who support the resolution” — conveniently leaving out the fact the piece did represent the board’s perspective. Further, Covert stalled the piece because it covered a walkout, stating that such coverage could encourage future disruptions to the school. 

Covert also had qualms with an opinion piece Lenerz wrote that, similar to Lieberman’s news piece, criticized the school board — specifically pointing out that its decision to move its meeting from 6 p.m. to 10 a.m. would prevent students and many parents from attending. In his internal report, Covert claimed the piece couldn’t be published because it contained “strong criticism of the school board” and coverage of “political dissent or activism,” “voting behavior,” and “opposition to elected officials.”

Of course, a search through The Torch’s web stories shows that the school paper has previously covered walkouts, voting, and opposition to elected officials multiple times in recent years. But those previous stories didn’t include any critiques of the school board, so they weren’t met with pushback.

Lieberman’s and Lenerz’s did. But criticism is not a constitutional basis for blocking publication, nor one that complies with Pine View’s own policies — no matter what an AI model says.

Fortunately, two days after FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative wrote to Sarasota County school officials, urging them to reverse Principal Covert’s decision, we learned that the district will allow the students’ stories to be published online.

FIRE is pleased to have confirmation from the students that the articles will now be published. In response to our letter, a Sarasota County Schools official maintained there was never any “denial of publication,” but rather that “considerations were provided for discussion.” That characterization is difficult to square with the principal’s AI-generated report describing the pieces as “instructionally defensible” and framing the matter as a “curriculum alignment issue.” At a minimum, the pieces were held back for illegitimate reasons. 

Disagreement with a student reporter’s viewpoint is no excuse to censor it

While The Torch may be subject to prior review by the Pine View School principal, this review is not without constitutional limits.

The Supreme Court held in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier that where a publication bears the imprimatur of the school, is produced as a classroom activity, and is not dedicated as a “forum for student expression,” the school may regulate its content only for “legitimate pedagogical purposes.” These purposes contemplate factors such as the maturity of the publication’s audience and protection of student privacy. 

While school administrators frequently misuse Hazelwood to justify viewpoint-based censorship of student publications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which binds Sarasota County Schools — has explicitly held that administrators must be viewpoint neutral when deciding what can and can’t be published under the Hazelwood standard. 

In the court’s words: “Although Hazelwood provides reasons for allowing a school official to discriminate based on content, we do not believe it offers any justification for allowing educators to discriminate based on viewpoint.” 

Likewise, the school board’s own policy requires the principal to exercise viewpoint neutrality when reviewing a student publication’s content and to base any editorial decisions solely on legitimate pedagogical interests. 

The claimed pedagogical interests Covert cited don’t bear weight under pressure. The Supreme Court has characterized “the Nation’s youth” as “primarily the responsibility” of “school officials” — and those young people will be ill-equipped to enter the adult realm of civic engagement if they can’t even read about “voting behavior” in a high school newspaper. 

And if prior stories about walkouts, voting, and criticism of elected officials were permitted without objection on pedagogical grounds, why were these stories treated any differently?

The evidence points to one reason: both Lieberman’s and Lenerz’s pieces criticized the school board.

The problem with prior review 

Hazelwood opened the floodgates for student press censorship in the K-12 setting. When school officials fail to understand the complexities of Hazelwood and its progeny, stories officials dislike — like Lenerz’s and Lieberman’s — are vulnerable to being censored. That censorship silences important voices, like students who disagree with their school board. 

Student journalists aren’t without recourse, though. SPFI is available every day at all hours to answer urgent questions about student press censorship with our hotline. Student press advocates also can explore opportunities to be involved in New Voices legislation, a grassroots movement that protects student media from prior review. 

In the meantime, student journalists like those at The Torch need all the protection they can get from censorship, and SPFI is here to help. 

FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative (SPFI) defends free press on campus by advocating for the rights of student journalists at colleges and universities across the country and offers helpful resources on student press censorship and information on the role of student media. If you face censorship, call 717-734-SPFI (7734) for guidance, resources, and answers to your legal questions.