In a decision that once again demonstrates how quickly and dramatically student First Amendment protections are slipping away, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that a middle school was not a public forum and school officials could both require prior approval of student leaflets and prohibit their distribution in hallways.

The case M.A.L. v. Kinsland, involved eighth grader referred to in the case only as “Michael” at Jefferson Middle School in Monroe, Mich.  Michael was told by Principal Stephen Kinsland that he could not distribute anti-abortion leaflets because he had not submitted them for approval.  The school maintained that it would have allowed the student to post his leaflets on bulletin boards and distribute them during lunch period.

In upholding the school’s restriction, the court said that school hallways were “nonpublic forums” and that the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District did not apply and thus the school had no obligation to show that the leaflets would create a substantial disruption.  The court held that the Tinker decision is only a prohibition on viewpoint-based censorship and because Principal Kinsland did not limit Michael’s leaflets because of their anti-abortion views, the restrictions were reasonable “time, place and manner” regulations.

“It is also reasonable for the school to require prior approval before permitting students to distribute literature,” the court said.

In effect, this wrong-headed decision allows school officials to silence virtually all student expression in school.  If school officials make sure to ban speech on all sides of a topic, thus avoiding the charge of viewpoint discrimination, this court suggests they can censor anything they don’t like.  The Sixth Ciruit has jurisdiction over the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee; it will be hard times ahead for students and media advisers in those states if this decision stands.

In the mind of this scholastic journalism advocate, this decision is one more in the quickly growing number of cases that represent nails in the coffin of the First Amendment in our nation’s schools.  At a time when virtually anyone informed about the subject agrees teenagers understanding and appreciation of the First Amendment is frighteningly low, our federal courts ensure educating young people about fundamental American freedoms will be even harder.

And to place blame directly where it belongs, the strongest advocate for this perversion of our constitution is an organization that one should know better: the National School Board Association.  The NSBA filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case, as it has in virtually all major cases involving student First Amendment rigthts in recent years, never once taking a position that actually supports the First Amendment.  From NSBA’s perspective, school officials should be allowed to engage in any censorship that is “reasonable,” which, of course, translates as anything that school officials say is reasonable.

Perhaps the full Sixth Circuit court will reconsider Tuesday’s decision by a three-judge panel.  Or, even less likely, the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case and will reverse the Sixth Circuit.  But there is only one certain way out of this deepening hole the courts are digging: state laws limiting the ability of school officials to censor student expression unless they can demonstrate material and substantial disruption or invasion of the rights of others.  Seven states have done this already.  Every state needs to. Too many school administrators and school boards have abdicated their responsibility to provide any meaningful civic education.  The challenge, for anyone who cares about the future of the First Amendment, is to force them to do so.