Student press rights came under scrutiny — and appeared to have emerged intact yesterday — after a half year legal battle in San Francisco Superior Court.
Judge Christine Van Aken granted Lowell High School journalism adviser and instructor Eric Gustafson’s petition for a writ of mandate, which argued that the San Francisco Unified School District retaliated against him for defending student journalists’ rights that are protected under California Education Code 48907.
By reassigning Gustafson to a non-journalism teaching position in an attempt to control protected student expression, the judge argued the school had violated Section G of that law, also known as the Journalism Teacher Protection Act which reads:
“An employee shall not be dismissed, suspended, disciplined, reassigned, transferred, or otherwise retaliated against solely for acting to protect a pupil engaged in the conduct authorized under this section, or refusing to infringe upon conduct that is protected by this section, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution.”
In her ruling, Van Aken stated:
“Respondents [SFUSD] unquestionably have broad discretion to reassign teachers, but they have no authority to reassign a journalism advisor solely for the motive forbidden by 48907.”
Because the judge’s order may take “intermediate steps to effectuate,” the court stayed the order for 30 days.
According to Laura Dudnick, SFUSD director of communications, the district has yet to decide if it will appeal.
“We respect the judge’s ruling and are working closely with legal counsel on the next steps,” Dudnick said in an email to The Paly Voice. “As this is a personnel matter which may take some time to sort out, we are limited in what we can share right now. We remain fully committed to continuing to provide students with high-quality journalism instruction and will be sure to keep students and families informed of any updates.”
According to Gustafson, the ruling didn’t come as a total surprise, but he was proud that his students stood strong by not giving into administrative pressure.
“My biggest emotion is relief,” Gustafson said. “The second biggest emotion is a real sense of vindication that not only had I done the right thing, but my students had done the right thing. Those stories that are referenced in the ruling, those were really strong stories. They were controversial, but the students didn’t do anything wrong. What is wrong is for the English Department chairs to try and change or influence what students write about.”
In granting the writ, Judge Van Aken outlined how the district’s actions stemmed from a series of controversial stories published — or in one case, just discussed — by The Lowell. These included “Obtainable and addictive,” an article on student drug use; a report titled “Invasive and inappropriate” detailing student allegations of sexual harassment by teachers; and a story idea examining teachers’ use of artificial intelligence to grade student work.
After the publication of the first two stories, school administrators repeatedly sought prior review of The Lowell’s content, requests that Gustafson referred to student editors, who declined. Shortly after learning of the planned AI article, the principal informed Gustafson that he would be replaced as journalism adviser the following year.
The district’s lawyers argued that the reassignment was to promote growth in the quality of The Lowell’s journalism and for scheduling reasons. However, the judge said that these arguments were impermissibly constructed after administrators made clear that they were objecting to the content of The Lowell’s articles.
Van Aken’s ruling states:
“The court finds that Respondents’ post-hoc explanations for the reassignment are not credible.”
According to Tracy Anne Sena, president of the Journalism Education Association of Northern California, she is hopeful that this case puts a spotlight on the limits of administrative authority over student journalism.
“I’m hoping that it is going to put administrators on alert, that students have the right to write about things that they care about even if it upsets adults,” Sena said. “It must meet journalist standards — that’s part of the act — but just because adults are uncomfortable is not a good reason that students should not be publishing.”
Gustafson said that he is satisfied with the fact that this case has highlighted the importance of student journalism being just as real as any other journalism.
“My hope is that there is an awareness and acknowledgement that these student publications are truly independent publications,” Gustafson said. “When administrators or teachers say that ‘Well, it’s just a student publication. It’s not like the [San Francisco] Chronicle,’ but at the end of the day, it really is. They are independent and the adviser really can’t tell them what to write about, nor can other people.”
Gustafson added that he is hopeful the outcome of his case may be reflected in others.
Students and journalism advisers are watching a similar case regarding Mountain View High School’s journalism publication, The Oracle, and the MVLA School District. That case has been pending for two years.
