Opinion ID: 2610617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Newspaper

Text: We find it somewhat difficult to grasp the purport of this aspect of appellant's argument. He preliminarily states that The court erred in finding that there was substantial evidence to sustain the school board's position that Jergeson was responsible to censor the newspaper, but while calling attention to the board's finding that the teacher was the faculty adviser of the Ocksheperida does not pinpoint any erroneous finding of the court. Appellant maintains that there were no rules and regulations concerning the responsibility for the paper and that without a definite policy concerning the paper the board should not be allowed to dismiss for something Jergeson was not directed to do, but also states that it was Sara York, the editor and author of the questioned article, who was responsible for the newspaper. At one point appellant says that this was the joke edition of the newspaper and that the author testified she thought the disputed article was funny; at another he seems to argue that the editor had a right to criticize, citing Zucker v. Panitz, S.D.N.Y., 299 F. Supp. 102, 105, as explicitly in point when it said: This lawsuit arises at a time when many in the educational community oppose the tactics of the young in securing a political voice. It would be both incongruous and dangerous for this court to hold that students who wish to express their views on matters intimately related to them, though traditionally accepted nondisruptive modes of communication, may be precluded from doing so by that same adult community. While the whole of this argument may well constitute a perfect shotgun approach, it presents no valid ground for reversal. In view of the testimony of the school principal that Jergeson conducted a class in journalism and was the adviser to the school newspaper  the two intermingling  and as adviser was responsible for those who work on the paper and the production of the paper, and that of Sara York who said that Jergeson in no way advised her concerning the questioned article in the newspaper and that although she imagined he saw it before it was published she did not remember his discussing it with her or giving her any criticism, we consider the trial court's opinion in regard to the newspaper well grounded:    [Other incidents and] his apparent approval of a picture of a row of urinals in the school newspaper are not exactly fine examples to set for impressionable students. It is not that these students or at least a part of them have not been exposed to a more base and filthy humor outside the schools but in the halls of an institution where lofty ideals and examples should be the rule, it is out of place. The School Board obviously was offended by this conduct which could well be classified as incompetency.       Tinker vs. De[s]Moines Community School District, [393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733] 21 L.Ed.2d 731, is cited by Plaintiff as giving the students the right to express critical opinions of the disciplinary action of certain teachers, in the `Old Meany Master' article and the Letter to the Editor. One expression in that case strikes the Court as being applicable. At page 741, it is stated that a student may express his opinion if he does so `without materially and substantially interfering with appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others.' It seems to the Court that the Board of Trustees could have well decided that the mentioned articles appearing in the Ocksheperida did interfere with the discipline of the school and did collide with the rights of others, namely the teachers and administrators of the school, involved in the two matters there discussed. The School Board could have well decided within its discretion that when the faculty member in charge of the Ocksheperida and instructor in journalism permits such articles to appear that he is in this way expressing his incompetence. The students in speaking out in the school paper as they did were not entertaining a subject such as the war in Vietnam or some controversial matter of a public nature but were making personal attacks on members of the faculty. There is a regular way to make such complaints and that is to the Principal, the Superintendent or to the Board of Trustees, where these matters may be aired and if necessary a hearing had. It would appear on the face of it that these articles were written in a more serious vein than mere jesting and in a spirit of fun. They were clearly barbed. The school board could well be justified in deciding that this is a demonstration in poor journalism, one of the subjects taught by Mr. Jergeson and another example of his incompetency. The Court would not want to defend the proposition that the board was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable in doing so.          [Other incidents and Mr. Jergeson's] failure to adequately supervise a school newspaper with which he was charged may be manifestations of his loose views and the Board of Trustees could well so conclude.