We Found 484 Resources For You..
Download File ->->->-> https://cinurl.com/2tkXTJ
DisclaimerArticles and information provided by the Cypress College Health Center staff on this website are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to substitute for medical advice from a physician or other health care provider. Any information and/or suggested resources are not intended, and must not be taken to be, the rendering of medical services or the practice of medicine. You should always seek the advice of a physician or other health care provider for specific health questions or conditions and before you begin any new type of medical treatment. Do not delay seeking medical advice or disregard medical advice simply because you have chosen to use this site.
Department of Education (ED) guidance on the use of Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) funds is changing on an almost daily basis. Check back often as NASFAA will continue to update this reference page as any new guidance becomes available. Updates will be marked below in red. More information and resources on how the spread of the novel coronavirus is impacting student financial aid can be found on NASFAA's COVID-19 Web Center.
The District Court concluded that school officials may impose restraints on students' speech in activities that are \"`an integral part of the school's educational function'\" - including the publication of a school-sponsored newspaper by a journalism class - so long as their decision has \"`a substantial and reasonable basis.'\" Id., at 1466 (quoting Frasca v. Andrews, 463 F. Supp. 1043, 1052 (EDNY 1979)). The court found that Principal Reynolds' concern that the pregnant student's anonymity would be lost and their privacy invaded was \"legitimate and reasonable,\" given \"the small number of pregnant students at Hazelwood East and several identifying characteristics that were disclosed in the article.\" 607 F. Supp., at 1466. The court held that Reynolds' action was also justified \"to avoid the impression that [the school] endorses [484 U.S. 260, 265] the sexual norms of the subjects\" and to shield younger students from exposure to unsuitable material. Ibid. The deletion of the article on divorce was seen by the court as a reasonable response to the invasion of privacy concerns raised by the named student's remarks. Because the article did not indicate that the student's parents had been offered an opportunity to respond to her allegations, said the court, there was cause for \"serious doubt that the article complied with the rules of fairness which are standard in the field of journalism and which were covered in the textbook used in the Journalism II class.\" Id., at 1467. Furthermore, the court concluded that Reynolds was justified in deleting two full pages of the newspaper, instead of deleting only the pregnancy and divorce stories or requiring that those stories be modified to address his concerns, based on his \"reasonable belief that he had to make an immediate decision and that there was no time to make modifications to the articles in question.\" Id., at 1466.
The Court of Appeals found \"no evidence in the record that the principal could have reasonably forecast that the censored articles or any materials in the censored articles would have materially disrupted classwork or given rise to substantial disorder in the school.\" 795 F.2d, at 1375. School officials were entitled to censor the articles on the ground that [484 U.S. 260, 266] they invaded the rights of others, according to the court, only if publication of the articles could have resulted in tort liability to the school. The court concluded that no tort action for libel or invasion of privacy could have been maintained against the school by the subjects of the two articles or by their families. Accordingly, the court held that school officials had violated respondents' First Amendment rights by deleting the two pages of the newspaper.
School officials did not deviate in practice from their policy that production of Spectrum was to be part of the educational curriculum and a \"regular classroom activit[y].\" The District Court found that Robert Stergos, the journalism teacher during most of the 1982-1983 school year, \"both had the authority to exercise and in fact exercised a great deal of control over Spectrum.\" 607 F. Supp., at 1453. For example, Stergos selected the editors of the newspaper, scheduled publication dates, decided the number of pages for each issue, assigned story ideas to class members, advised students on the development of their stories, reviewed the use of quotations, edited stories, selected and edited the letters to the editor, and dealt with the printing company. Many of these decisions were made without consultation with the Journalism II students. The District Court thus found it \"clear that Mr. Stergos was the final authority with respect to almost every aspect of the production and publication of Spectrum, including its content.\" Ibid. Moreover, after [484 U.S. 260, 269] each Spectrum issue had been finally approved by Stergos or his successor, the issue still had to be reviewed by Principal Reynolds prior to publication. Respondents' assertion that they had believed that they could publish \"practically anything\" in Spectrum was therefore dismissed by the District Court as simply \"not credible.\" Id., at 1456. These factual findings are amply supported by the record, and were not rejected as clearly erroneous by the Court of Appeals.
The evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals in finding Spectrum to be a public forum, see 795 F.2d, at 1372-1373, is equivocal at best. For example, Board Policy 348.51, which stated in part that \"[s]chool sponsored student publications will not restrict free expression or diverse viewpoints within the rules of responsible journalism,\" also stated that such publications were \"developed within the adopted curriculum and its educational implications.\" App. 22. One might reasonably infer from the full text of Policy 348.51 that school officials retained ultimate control over what constituted \"responsible journalism\" in a school-sponsored newspaper. Although the Statement of Policy published in the September 14, 1982, issue of Spectrum declared that \"Spectrum, as a student-press publication, accepts all rights implied by the First Amendment,\" this statement, understood in the context of the paper's role in the school's curriculum, suggests at most that the administration will not interfere with the students' exercise of those First Amendment rights that attend the publication of a school-sponsored newspaper. It does not reflect an intent to expand those rights by converting a curricular newspaper into a public forum.2 Finally, [484 U.S. 260, 270] that students were permitted to exercise some authority over the contents of Spectrum was fully consistent with the Curriculum Guide objective of teaching the Journalism II students \"leadership responsibilities as issue and page editors.\" App. 11. A decision to teach leadership skills in the context of a classroom activity hardly implies a decision to relinquish school control over that activity. In sum, the evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals fails to demonstrate the \"clear intent to create a public forum,\" Cornelius, 473 U.S., at 802, that existed in cases in which we found public forums to have been created. See id., at 802-803 (citing Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S., at 267; Madison School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167, 174, n. 6 (1976); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 555 (1975)). School officials did not evince either \"by policy or by practice,\" Perry Education Assn., 460 U.S., at 47, any intent to open the pages of Spectrum to \"indiscriminate use,\" ibid., by its student reporters and editors, or by the student body generally. Instead, they \"reserve[d] the forum for its intended purpos[e],\" id., at 46, as a supervised learning experience for journalism students. Accordingly, school officials were entitled to regulate the contents of Spectrum in any reasonable manner. Ibid. It is this standard, rather than our decision in Tinker, that governs this case.
Accordingly, we conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for determining when a school may punish student expression need not also be the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination [484 U.S. 260, 273] of student expression.5 Instead, we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.6
[Footnote 2] The Statement also cited Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), for the proposition that \"[o]nly speech that `materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline' can be found unacceptable and therefore be prohibited.\" App. 26. This portion of the Statement does not, of course, even accurately reflect our holding in Tinker. Furthermore, the Statement nowhere expressly extended the Tinker standard to the news and feature articles contained in a school-sponsored newspaper. The dissent [484 U.S. 260, 270] apparently finds as a fact that the Statement was published annually in Spectrum; however, the District Court was unable to conclude that the Statement appeared on more than one occasion. In any event, even if the Statement says what the dissent believes that it says, the evidence that school officials never intended to designate Spectrum as a public forum remains overwhelming.
[Footnote 8] The reasonableness of Principal Reynolds' concerns about the two articles was further substantiated by the trial testimony of Martin Duggan, a former editorial page editor of the St. Louis Globe Democrat and a former college journalism instructor and newspaper adviser. Duggan testified that the divorce story did not meet journalistic standards of fairness and balance because the father was not given an opportunity to respond, and that the pregnancy story was not appropriate for publication in a high school newspaper because it was unduly intrusive into the privacy of the girls, their parents, and their boyfriends. The District Court found Duggan to be \"an objective and independent witness\" whose testimony was entitled to significant weight. 607 F. Supp. 1450, 1461 (ED Mo. 1985). 59ce067264
https://www.tylersaintxxx.com/forum/general-discussion/before-we-leave