Rosen, J. (2002). High school confidential. American Journalism Review, 24, 5, 56-60. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com/. The author examined censorship of high school publications using relevant examples from real-life censorship examples in United States high schools. The article began with a lengthy background of a case of censorship at Utica High School, thought by some law experts to be a good contender to battle Supreme Court case law set forth in cases like Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier because the paper stood historically as a public forum and the paper had not been censored previously. Rosen presented the viewpoint of both administrators and students in the cases exampled, but showed some bias in both her word choice and the weight she gave student opinions compared to administration viewpoint in the article. For example, she wrote about the trend of censorship as “unfortunate.” While writing much about the Utica High School examples, she glazed over other censorship examples in a series of bulleted points.
Saunders, T. (2003). The limits on university control of graduate student speech. The Yale Law Journal, 112, 5, 1295-1302. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org. A graduate thesis and the resulting legal battle served as the focal point of this article. In 1999 a master’s degree candidate at the University of California at Santa Barbara tacked a “disacknowledments” section, where he wrote negatively about professors onto his thesis after it was approved by Brown’s thesis committee. The university refused to file the paper into its library system and withheld Brown’s degree until the information was removed. Brown sued, setting up a court battle over student freedom of speech. The article outlined the case law used to decide the case and included an author opinion section.
Tanner, L. E. (2007). Rights and regulations: Academic freedom and university’s right to regulate the student press. Texas Law Review, 86, 42, 421-450. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com. As expected in a law journal, the article examined censorship in schools, specifically at the university level by taking an in-depth look at the laws and regulations surrounding student censorship. This was accomplished by analyzing important case laws. After a brief introduction, the author organized case laws grouped together by timeline. The article is written with bias, evidenced in its introduction, a lengthy discussion of the importance of the First Amendment and why it should not be watered down in any form. The article is notable for the number of footnotes contained, 161 in some cases the page is filled more by footnotes than the body of the article. No reference to even the author’s title or position were given, leaving the reader to guess about the author’s credentials.
Tobin, S. (2004). Divining Hazelwood: The need for a viewpoint neutrality requirement in school speech cases. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 39. 221-264. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com. The article took an in-depth look at the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier United States Supreme Court decision, with an objective to examine that case in a post September 11 world. After an introduction, the author organized the rest of the article in a timeline, with sections devoted to the case background, a discussion of the decision in the case, and the result of the case. Most of the article examined how the case affects student journalism up to and including today. The article included 261 footnotes giving lengthy references to both this court case and other relevant documents.
Winkler, L. (2005). Celebrate democracy! Teach about censorship. The English Journal, 94, 5, 48-51. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org. This article, written in first person, outlined the reasons and methodology an English teacher uses to teach about censorship in the classroom. The author showed bias when she wrote about “celebrating” banned books week, and the bias is backed up a sentence in the biography included after the article, where the word sad was used to describe censorship in classes. The article includes a sidebar with 25 reasons why a book “may be challenged or banned.”