A Nebraska student journalist, with the help of the Student Press Law Center, is pushing back against censorship at his high school, and he hopes it will secure press freedom for all students in his district.
Gretna East High School junior Nicholas Mitchell filed an appeal yesterday with the Gretna Public Schools Board of Education, asking them to reverse the recent censorship of an editorial cartoon and to establish a district policy that lets student editors determine the content of school-sponsored student media without prior review.
“I had to do something because I believe every voice matters, no matter who you are,” Mitchell said. “I want a student at Gretna East five years from now to have the freedom to speak their mind and share their ideas honestly, without censorship or prior review.”
In January, Gretna East administrators told editors for Gretna East Media to remove from their website an editorial cartoon by student Aidan McClaren that was critical of ICE. Administrators then insisted they must approve any article about the censorship, imposing prior review on the publication that had previously operated with editorial independence.
In justifying the censorship, administrators said the cartoon’s opinion on a politically charged topic could reflect on the district, and that it could potentially alienate students or cause a disruption.
In a letter of support, Student Press Law Center staff attorney Jonathan Gaston-Falk wrote that the censorship prevents students from meaningfully engaging with controversial issues.
“The issues presented in this case — administrative censorship of a student editorial cartoon and the imposition of prior review — are not only matters of student expression, but also of educational integrity, legal consistency, and the board’s own stated commitment to student learning and engagement,” Gaston-Falk said.
The school cited Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that student media censorship must be “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”
“The justification offered here — concerns about partisanship and speculative disruption — does not meet that threshold,” Gaston-Falk said.
Similarly, in Mitchell’s appeal to the school board, he identifies four issues with the school’s actions:
- The district’s controversial issues policy supports the cartoon’s publication. Mitchell argues that the cartoon is the exact type of content the board intended to protect with a 2017 policy that grants students the opportunity “to form, and in an appropriate manner and in appropriate forum, to express the students’ own judgments on controversial issues.”
- The administration’s justification does not meet the Hazelwood standard. Further, administrators said the school needs to remain neutral on political controversies, though Mitchell points out that this rationale would mean prohibiting all student opinion on any national topic.
- No student media policy exists in the district. Mitchell points out that, without a district policy, school administrators must make up the rules as they go, and there is no mechanism for protecting student speech or appealing censorship decisions.
- The student publication has historically operated with editorial independence. Mitchell writes that this new imposition of mandatory pre-approval — without any change in written policy — goes against that precedent.
Repeated censorship in Nebraska
This appeal isn’t just a case for students of Gretna East, but for students across Nebraska who seek to use their student publications to highlight important issues.
Other schools around Nebraska — including Bellevue East (2009), North Platte (2020), Omaha Westside (2021) and Grand Island Northwest (2022) — had similar cases of student media censorship in recent years.
Nebraska does not have statewide protections for student journalists like those in 18 other states, which have passed New Voices laws to reject the arbitrary censorship that flourishes under the Hazelwood standard.
The Nebraska legislature has considered similar bills in the past, including in 2024, when it failed to advance out of the Judiciary Committee on a 4-4 vote. A previous bill had majority support but failed because of a filibuster.
While other students at Gretna East are working to push New Voices legislation at the state level, Mitchell says his school district can make an immediate impact for student speech.
“The board is so critical because they can actually change things. They’re the difference between posting on social media and seriously advocating for myself and my peers,” he said.
SPLC provides support
The Student Press Law Center continues to work closely with Mitchell in his fight for student press freedom, and it provides guidance for any student or district across the country that wants to responsibly protect student voices.
“Adopting a clear student media policy, such as the model proposed by our organization, would resolve these issues constructively. It would define roles, establish standards, and provide safeguards for all parties involved,” Gaston-Falk wrote to the Gretna school board. “Importantly, it would also align district practice with the board’s stated commitment to evidence-based decision-making and educational excellence.”
Gaston-Falk emphasized the importance of student journalism as a learning lab for critical thinking, ethical reasoning and civic engagement.
“When students are allowed to report on real issues, make editorial decisions, and — when necessary — challenge authority, they are not undermining the educational mission,” Gaston-Falk said. “They are fulfilling it.”
What you can do to help
So far, over 350 members of the community have signed a petition in support of these students’ rights to expression. Click here to join their efforts.
If you’re a student journalist or educator looking for legal support this school year, contact the Student Press Law Center’s free, confidential Legal Hotline.
If you are interested in advocating for a stronger student media policy in your school district, review SPLC’s School Board Advocacy Toolkit.