Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress needs to protect student journalism

Opinion

student journalists

Students journalists need the same protections as professionals, writes Li.

Hill Street Studios/Getty Images

Alice Li is a student at Indian Mountain School in Lakeville, Conn.

Last year was a big one for student journalists. A reporter for Stanford University’s newspaper, The Stanford Daily, revealed that the university’s president fudged some numbers in his qualitative neuroscience research. The president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, resigned in face of the allegations.

Before that, reporters at The Daily Northwestern at Northwestern University revealed racist hazing events under the football coach Pat Fitzgerald. The coach was fired and an assistant athletic director resigned – impressive impact from a few stories.

But for 2024 to be even bigger for student journalists, Congress needs to step in and pass a national “New Voices” law.


New Voices laws are statutes that protect student journalists from having their stories censored unless they’re libelous, an invasion of privacy or constitute a “clear and present danger” or a “material and substantial [school] disruption.

Only sixteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that explicitly provide protections for student journalists. That means school administrators in 34 states can spike any story they want, whenever they want.

In certain states without these protections, administrators have taken action. They closed down an entire newspaper program at Northwest High School in Grand Isle, Neb.,, after the paper published two opinion columns about LGBTQ issues. The year before, at Westside High School in Omaha, administrators censored an editorial about censorship.

At first blush, these reports seem like blatant First Amendment violations but they’re not.

Administrators are permitted to suspend student newspaper advisors and shutter publications because 35 years ago, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeyer, the Supreme Court overturned a decision that gave full First Amendment protection to student journalists. In 1988, the court held that schools can censor student newspapers because they are closed, non-public forums and the censorship might be related to a legitimate pedagogical goal. (In 2005, an appellate court held that the Hazelwood holding applies to college newspapers as well.)

The Supreme Court said the school was not a public forum like streets or parks that “have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." The five justices who wrote the decision said the school would be a public forum if school authorities have "by policy or by practice" opened those facilities "for indiscriminate use by the general public."

The decision itself notes that 4,500 copies of the newspaper were distributed in the year in question. Indiscriminate use by the general public was almost impossible to achieve with such low circulation of print media.

But school journalism is different now, 35 years later. The general often relies on articles from student journalists. The Harvard Crimson has significant traffic to its website, with 303,797 visits in the 2021-22 academic year. A student at Brown University has an average of 1,792 shares per article she’s published. College newspapers have made a better transition to the digital landscape than even mainstream local news outlets, mostly because current students are digital natives and they are highly engaged with the happenings in their college communities.

High school newspapers haven’t fared as well in terms of digital transition; 64 percent of public high schools have a newspaper; which amounts to 11,000 school news organizations. Only about one-third of them have an online component. That’s low, perhaps too low, in 2024 with so much media online. But if the online stories are relied on by the public, they deserve protection.

It must be Congress that fixes this as protection isn’t likely to come from the Supreme Court any time soon. Even though the court seems anxious to overturn precedent lately, the Hazelwood holding probably isn’t one that will be reversed. It would be hard to convince a majority of the justices that a high school newspaper is a public forum since they haven’t extended that status to other arenas.

Congress has an interest in this; a number of bills and resolutions have been introduced in the past few years seeking to protect local news outlets. None have passed. The fact is that these student newspapers are covering for the local news outlets that lack the resources to conduct investigations.Censoring school journalists is consequential for local communities. Reporters for these school publications have done groundbreaking investigations that serve the public, not just the school community.

To be clear, good journalism has happened in states without the protections of New Voices laws. For example, Cedar BluePrints, the news magazine of Cedar Shoals High School in Georgia, uncovered a campaign finance scandal when it looked into the background of a new school board member who had misrepresented having graduated from that school. A high school in Kentucky found that the state police force was training cadets with a slideshow that quoted Hitler three times and essentially instructed them to use excessive force. Gov. Andy Beshear (D) took note and promised action.

And state-based New Voices laws alone aren’t a failsafe. California has one of the strongest New Voices laws, yet the Los Angeles Unified School District ignored the law and suspended a teacher at Daniel Pearl High School — a journalism magnet school named for the Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped and killed in 2002 — for refusing to censor a school newspaper story that contained the name of a librarian who chose to quit rather than get the Covid-19 vaccine, leaving students without library access.

Enacting a nationwide New Voices law would strengthen state versions and provide unprecedented protection in states that don't have one on the books. The current patchwork leaves some student journalists open to censorship while others are free to do their best work. Congress should do what it can to allow all student journalists’ stories to emerge.


Read More

Russia Tested NATO’s Airspace 18 Times in 2025 Alone – a 200% Surge That Signals a Dangerous Shift

Police inspect damage to a house struck by debris from a shot down Russian drone in the village of Wyryki-Wola, eastern Poland, on Sept. 10, 2025.

Russia Tested NATO’s Airspace 18 Times in 2025 Alone – a 200% Surge That Signals a Dangerous Shift

Russian aircraft, drones and missiles have violated NATO airspace dozens of times since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.

Individually, many of these incidents appear minor: a drone crash here, a brief fighter incursion there, a missile discovered only after the fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people looking at a computer screen at work.

On America’s anniversary, a call for young innovators to embrace AI, drive prosperity, and lead through the new U.S. Tech Corps initiative.

Getty Images, pixdeluxe

Ask Not What AI Can Do for You

Just about 250 years ago, young Americans risked everything to fight for a better future--one in which their loved ones, neighbors, and progeny could exercise individual liberty and collective prosperity. Their fight for democracy was regarded by many as a fool’s errand. People aren’t to be trusted. Only the enlightened should govern. Top-down, tyrannical approaches to governance were the only path forward.

But the American people rallied behind an optimistic vision and refused to accept the status quo. Where’s that spirit of liberty and commitment to building a better future today?

Keep ReadingShow less
Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
A U.S. flag flying before congress. Visual representation of technology, a glitch, artificial intelligence
As AI reshapes jobs and politics, America faces a choice: resist automation or embrace innovation. The path to prosperity lies in AI literacy and adaptability.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Why Should I Be Worried About AI?

For many people, the current anxiety about artificial intelligence feels overblown. They say, “We’ve been here before.” Every generation has its technological scare story. In the early days of automation, factories threatened jobs. Television was supposed to rot our brains. The internet was going to end serious thinking. Kurt Vonnegut’s Player Piano, published in 1952, imagined a world run by machines and technocrats, leaving ordinary humans purposeless and sidelined. We survived all of that.

So when people today warn that AI is different — that it poses risks to democracy, work, truth, our ability to make informed and independent choices — it’s reasonable to ask: Why should I care?

Keep ReadingShow less