Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Governmental Studies at the University of Virginia, once wrote that critics see journalists as “hypocritical of others yet vengeful when criticized… wrapping themselves in the First Amendment when challenged on virtually anything.”

The obvious reason for this is that the First Amendment profiles for journalists the liberties they cherish most, free press and speech. However, courts have wavered on those rights for high school publications. From Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the judiciary has repeatedly given and taken away various First Amendment freedoms from the high schoolers.

Last month a new complication arose. At Wooster High School in Ohio, four editors of the school newspaper, The Wooster Blade, are filing suit against their school district for censoring their publication. According to CNN, 4,500 copies of the Dec. 20 edition were confiscated due to possible libel and inaccuracies. The story contained quotes from student athletes and a daughter of a school board member saying that they had consumed alcohol at a party that officers raided.

After receiving a tip that the issue may contain libel, Wooster principal Jim Jackson and Superintendent David Etrop seized all copies of the paper on Dec. 19, according to a Jan. 8 Student Press Law Center article.

In the same article, Ken Myer, lawyer for the Wooster Blade, said that “the policies that the [school] board has implemented,” as well as, “the fact that it is also considered an open forum newspaper,” protected the students.

These stipulations, particularly the establishment of an open forum, help protect The Wooster Blade from Hazelwood scrutiny. As outlined by Hazelwood, school administrators can only censor publications that will cause a substantial disruption in the educational environment or those not opened as “public forums for student expression” aka an open forum.

The complication in the matter comes mostly from the quoted students retracting their statements, in particular the daughter of the school board member. This potentially makes the article libelous, an area not protected by the First Amendment right to free press.

However, this is not the jurisdiction of the school district. Should this publication have been distributed, the girl could have sued for libel and defamation of character if she was misquoted. The right to decide that is in the hands of the courts, not the school.

The Wooster Blade has suffered a great disservice and have appropriately wrapped themselves in the thin blanket of free press in high schools. Since The Blade passes the Hazelwood test, the old Tinker adage must be revived: “It can hardly be argued that students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Editorial Board: Cavan Reagan, Amber Billings, Ayrel Clark, Charlie Weaver