Deciding who or what to endorse is sometimes the easy part. Overcoming administrative censorship of endorsements can be a bigger problem.

It is editorial endorsement season in America. Over the next several weeks, as the November election approaches, the editorial staffs of newspapers across the country will gather to decide whose name they will put forward on their editorial pages as the best candidate and which issues they believe are worthy of reader support.

And while most of the editorial staff and readers of high school student media may not be able to cast a vote (some can, of course), the candidates elected and the issues being debated have as much — and in some cases, much more — direct impact on students than they do on more senior voters. High school-aged students will be living on this planet longer than their parents and grandparents and their stake, for example, in how a candidate has voted on environmental issues is arguably greater. The same holds true for issues such as government deficits, which our youngest citizens will likely be responsible for paying down, or government-supported social programs, which they may be called upon to prop up. Who knows better whether a school levy is truly needed than those who partake of a public school’s services and use its facilities every day? And, of course, 18-year-old’s far outnumber the 50 year-old’s who find themselves in a military combat zone. For many soon-to-be 18-year-old’s, a candidate’s war stance is more than just something to debate over dinner, it’s their future.

Whether or not to publish a political endorsement is, however, an editorial decision and it makes sense for students to spend some time addressing the pros and cons of endorsements. In fact, some newspapers frown on the practice, feeling that the press should stick to providing neutral information and not be in the business of choosing sides. But that is probably the minority view, and publishing endorsements remains a common practice. As one editor put it, “The only purpose of an editorial column is to render opinions on public issues, and no public issue is as important as an election.”

Unfortunately, for high school student newspapers that choose to do so, deciding who or what to endorse is sometimes the easy part. In some cases, overcoming administrative censorship of their endorsements can be a bigger problem.

For student journalists in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts and Oregon — the seven states that currently have student free expression laws on their books — censorship is not a legal option for school officials. Assuming the endorsements are not otherwise unlawful (for example, they are not libelous, obscene, seriously disruptive, etc.), state law protects the right of students in those states to have their views read or heard. (State regulations and/or state constitutional provisions in Pennsylvania and Washington may provide similar protection.) Likewise, students whose publications operate as “public forums” should also be legally protected from censorship and allowed to publish any lawful editorial endorsement. (While it can get complicated, a public forum exists where student editors — either by district or school policy or by longstanding practice — have been allowed to decide what to publish. Much more information is available on the Student Press Law Center Web site.)

For all other public high school students, however, the censorship question is less certain. In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hazelwood decision that school officials could censor school-sponsored student media where they could show they had a reasonable educational justification for doing so. The Court gave several examples of student speech that would meet such a standard. Among them, the Court said that it was reasonable for school officials to censor student speech that would “associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.” While there has yet to be a case specifically addressing the issue, that probably would include an editorial endorsement in a school-sponsored student newspaper where readers might reasonably be confused into thinking the school or school officials were taking sides.

Still, nothing in Hazelwood requires administrative censorship. And by keeping in mind the following suggestions, students should be able to avoid the censorship trap.

1. Publish a disclaimer such as the following:

“The Student Times is edited and produced by students attending Central High School. The views expressed are solely those of the identified authors or the student editorial staff and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Central School District, Central High School or its administrators, faculty, newspaper adviser or other staff. All comments regarding the news or viewpoints expressed in the Student Times should be directed to its student editor-in-chief, who is responsible for all of the student newspaper’s content. The editor-in-chief can be reached by e-mail at: eic@studenttimes.org or by calling the Student Times newsroom at: (555) 555-5555.”

The notice should be prominently displayed on the editorial page. Making clear that students, not the school officials, are responsible for the newspaper’s contents should eliminate the school’s claim that readers would think the school itself is playing favorites. Indeed, adding such a disclaimer for the benefit of readers is a good practice for all student media to follow, regardless of whether or not censorship is a threat.

2. Keep the adviser (and all other school officials) out of the editorial decision-making process. He or she is, in the eyes of the law, a government employee just like the principal or superintendent. Laws do restrict public employees from engaging in political speech while on the job. These laws, however, do not apply to students, who are neither employees nor agents of the school. By keeping the final decision regarding who or what to endorse student-only, a student staff can avoid unnecessary complications. (Note that once an endorsement has been written, an adviser can assist in checking it over for spelling/grammar issues, just as they might normally do for other material.)

3. Write well. Recent court decisions indicate school officials will have a more difficult time getting away with censorship of an endorsement that is well-reasoned, relies on accurate facts, is free of grammar and spelling errors and is otherwise journalistically sound. Remember, school officials have to demonstrate a reasonable educational justification for their censorship. Don’t make it easy for them.

4. Where censorship is threatened, remind school officials that their suppression of a well-reasoned, well-written, fairly debated editorial endorsement — censorship that the student staff will not simply take lying down — is likely going to attract more attention and be more controversial than the endorsement, if left alone, ever would. As happens in almost every case like this, news media, community leaders, civil rights organizations and politicians will be quick to jump on a news story about a school that silences students peacefully attempting to have their voice heard on important issues of the day.

While our youngest citizens might not be able to actually pull the lever in a voting booth, they should certainly be permitted — even encouraged — to think and talk to others about what they would do if they could. The stakes are high for all Americans.

Mike Hiestand is an attorney, based in the far, upper left corner of the "Lower 48," and works as a legal consultant to the Student Press Law Center.