But thanks to the Supreme Court's 1988 Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier decision and image-conscious school officials, that lesson is one a growing number of journalism educators are finding almost impossible to teach. Consequences for the future of journalism education and the entire profession could be devastating.

To many whose last significant contact with high school was before the mid-'70s, the existence of an independent, substantive high school press may be a surprise. But after the Supreme court ruled in a 1969 case involving students who wore armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War that students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, the principle of press freedom began to be applied to the high school media. By the early '80s, courts nationwide had ruled that unless public school officials could demonstrate evidence that substantial disruption of school activities was imminent, they could not censor school-sponsored student publications simply because they were controversial or expressed unpopular views. As a result, the quality of high school journalism soared as students began to discuss real issues like drug abuse and school funding instead of limiting their coverage to fashion critiques of prom couples and football statistics.

On Jan. 13, 1988, the Supreme Court pulled the rug out from under the burgeoning success of the high school press. In a case that arose from a school in suburban St. Louis, the court said that school officials had the authority to censor stories about teen pregnancy and divorce from a high school newspaper. In its Hazelwood ruling, the court said school officials have the authority to censor most avenues of school-sponsored student expression when they can show that their censorship is "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." That phrase, Supreme Court legalese for having an educational excuse, dramatically lowered the First Amendment hurdle that lower courts had said officials had to overcome before they could legally censor student publications.

Journalism educators condemned the decision and predicted censorship would increase. Requests for legal assistance received by the Student Press Law Center in the eight years since indicate that they were right. In 1988, we received 548 calls for help from around the country. By 1995, that number had increased to almost 1,500.

But it is the incidents of censorship that truly tell the story of the price we are paying as a result of Hazelwood. An incident this spring at a Missouri high school demonstrates the kind of censorship many school officials think they can get away with.

After staffers of the Jaguar Journal student newspaper at Blue Springs South High School attended an American Cancer Society program on the dangers of smoking, they decided to focus an issue of their paper on the topic. After getting permission of local police, they conducted an investigation of how many stores would sell cigarettes to minors. School officials refused to allow them to publish their story, which named two stores that broke the law, saying that they did not believe students should be investigating goings-on outside the school. After a newspaper published the store names, the officials relented. But at the end of the school year the student editor said the staff was fearful that their adviser was going to be punished because of the controversy.

The sad fact is that for many school officials, their commitment is not to the truth or to teaching students journalistic principles, but to create a positive image of the school, no matter how unrealistic that image is. Countless other student journalists have confronted this problem:

• In Indiana, a principal censored a story that detailed how a tennis coach had improperly pocketed more that $1,000 that team members had paid for court time. All agreed the story was accurate. The student editor later learned that administrators had promised the coach that the story would not run if he resigned.

• In Alaska, a principal censored a junior high school student paper editorial that complained about teachers smoking next door to a classroom in violation of rules. The student wrote that students were "sick from the smoke coming into our room." The principal told the student the story would be an embarrassment.

• A New York principal killed a story, written from police and court records, reporting that one of the high school's teachers had been arrested for growing marijuana. The principal said she censored the story because it would have "undermined (the teacher's) ability to teach."

• In Ohio, a superintendent censored an advertisement submitted to the student newspaper by a local school board candidate. After it was removed, the editor wrote an editorial criticizing the superintendent's actions. "The fundamental truth of the First Amendment is that all ideas have a right to be heard," she wrote. Officials censored the editorial as well.

Others are turning to their own independent means of publishing, through underground newspapers produced on home computers and duplicated at the local copy shops or online Web pages and electronic mailings. But journalism educators regret the important opportunities for classroom learning about the journalistic responsibility that are lost when students walk away from the school-sponsored media. They also fear the prospect of press freedom only being available to those students who have the money to support it, leaving the poorer students entirely unexposed to this fundamental notion of American democracy.

Perhaps the most dramatic response to Hazelwood and the censorship it has inspired has been the effort to enact state laws giving students pre-1988 free press protections. The ruling only dictated the limits of First Amendment protections; it left open the possibility that states could create their own laws or regulations that provide student journalists with greater protection than the First Amendment. After Hazelwood, a total of 28 legislatures have debated such laws, and six have passed them: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts. In those states, students will be allowed to express themselves freely in school unless school officials can demonstrate it is libelous, obscene or will create a substantial disruption.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this battle has been how little support students sometimes receive from the local "professional" media. One adviser whose job was threatened this summer over a controversial feature published in a yearbook, asked me, "Why are they (the local media) so anxious to see us fail, highlighting what they perceive are our students' mistakes and never willing to defend our right to be less then perfect? Would they really like to be held to the same standard?"

She expressed a sentiment that our discussions with student editors and advisers around the country suggest is increasing. A growing number believe that the commercial media is only interested in press freedom when its rights are being threatened and have little concern about those same rights as they apply to others, especially young people.

After 11 years at the Student Press Law Center, I know that perception is not an accurate reflection of the attitudes of thousands of the nation's journalists. But I also know that most of these students will not make journalism their profession and thus never set foot in a professional newsroom. Their attitudes about the media and the importance we place on press freedom will be fundamentally shaped by experiences that end the day they graduate.

In April, the principal at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Miss., confiscated the student newspaper, the Chieftain, because of an editorial cartoon. The cartoon depicted a reporter at a news conference asking a school official what his long-term plans were for the school. The school official's response: "Well ... um, um ... well, you see, sir ... do you want to take that one, Doug?" The cartoon represented a mild version of the kind of commentary commercial newspapers engage in every day. Members of the staff decided to fight the censorship and may take the school to court.

Chieftain cartoonist Jessica Russell put the controversy in perspective in a message to students and teachers.

"Thousands of people risked and lost their own lives in order to obtain the freedoms that exist in our country today. We feel that it is not only wrong, but also unjust to simply stand by quietly while these liberties are being denied." I hope that more of Jessica's peers will be willing and able to wage these battles. For the sake of the First Amendment and the future of our profession, we owe them our support.

Goodman is executive director of the Student Press Law Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1910, Arlington, Va. 22209. Phone 703/807-1904. E-mail: splc@capaccess.org.