As journalism is increasingly politicized, the high school journalism room finds itself at the center of controversy. At Lowell High School in San Francisco, journalism teacher Eric Gustafson was suddenly reassigned after a student article published by the Lowell examined the alleged misconduct of teachers. The article, which changed all names and followed ethical principles of reporting, appears to have resulted in Gustafson’s dismissal because of his support for his students’ work.
The transfer and reassignment of Mr. Gustafson was unlawful, violating California’s legal protections for student free expression and the educators who support that expression. The center of the issue has been evident in schools across the state and the country, the subtle demise of press freedom in places where it is most precarious. High school journalism is not a class; it is a manifestation of the student voice and one of children’s earliest tastes of the democratic process. It is legally protected and important for civic education.
In California, that protection is written into the Educational Code 48907, perhaps the most progressive student free expression law in the nation. It guarantees that student journalists have the right to publish about issues of public importance, as long as they are not publishing work that is obscene, libelous or slanderous. It also states that school officials can not punish advisers who support student journalists in exercising those rights. These laws exist for the very purpose of preventing the kind of retaliatory action that seems to have happened at Lowell.
Even so, the San Francisco Unified School District asserts that Mr. Gustafson’s reassignment was “routine staffing.” That said, nonetheless, statements issued by both the Journalism Education Association of Northern California and the Student Press Law Center indicate that they think differently. Both groups have pointed to Mr. Gustafson’s removal from the position of adviser as a likely violation of state law. Mr. Gustafson believes he was reassigned because he supported the student’s article in question. It is hard to overlook the timing: the article ran, and within weeks, he was reassigned.
This case is not an exception. A survey by the Student Press Law Center in 2021 found that over one-third of high school journalism advisers experienced pressure from school administrators to censor or change student work. A separate study by the Knight Foundation revealed that only 25 percent of high school students reported understanding that they had First Amendment rights in student media. That lack of understanding leaves students – and their advisers – unprepared in instances of conflict. It also lets school districts be flexible with or ignore the law, assuming that few will fight back.
Students at Lowell have defended Mr. Gustafson’s integrity and commitment to journalistic standards, saying he never told them what to write, only how to verify their claims and they are accountable for telling the truth. These stories reflect examples from other schools, where advisers have been punished not for wrongdoing, but for supporting student reporting that made administrators uncomfortable. At Bear Creek High School in Stockton, California, students faced resistance from administrators after publishing a well-researched yet controversial article addressing racism. They performed all editorial due diligence, only to have it removed. Then they were silenced, inappropriately being pulled from the publication without cause.
Critics of these articles sometimes claim that even anonymous criticism of staff can create a toxic work environment. This worry, however considerate, cannot outweigh the public’s right to know. Journalism is about informing, not comforting. Schools are public institutions and must be able to tolerate healthy scrutiny, even if it arrives from their own students. Reassigning a teacher who simply stood behind the reporting of his students was not only a personnel decision, but it was an assault on the principle of a free press.
As journalists of the Redwood Bark, we are personally invested in the outcome of this case. We know what it means to explore sensitive subject matter. We understand the responsibilities that come with our platform. We are fortunate to live and work in a state that recognizes our rights to do so. Should we find ourselves in a similar situation, there are resources that allow us to approach it in every ethical and legal way possible. We would be able to rely on legal resources, such as the Student Press Law Center. We would ensure our work was accurate, unbiased, and responsible. And, just as Gustafson stood by his students, we would stand by our adviser, if retaliation ever followed our work.
