Illinois is one of only 18 states with a law protecting student journalists from direct censorship. Despite this, student voices are often silenced because our state lacks protections for high school journalism advisers.

In 2019, student reporters at Naperville Central High School sought to publish a story highlighting the need for more special education staff, citing incidents of disruptive and violent behavior by a student with developmental disabilities, including an attack on a teacher that caused a concussion. The article maintained the student’s anonymity while addressing the lack of support staff. 

When Principal Bill Wiesbrook learned about the piece, he censored over 25% of it, claiming the edits were necessary to protect the student’s privacy.

“When we had the article ready to publish, the principal said he wanted to meet with us and basically threatened our adviser if we published the story as it was. We did not want that. For the protection of our adviser, we complied,” Editor-in-Chief Amisha Seth said. 

The students had every legal right to publish, yet they felt pressured to comply.

This case highlights a deeper issue: when administrators can’t censor students directly, they often pressure advisers instead. 

This indirect censorship acts as a major loophole in the 2016 Speech Rights of Student Journalists Act, also known as the Illinois New Voices law, which guarantees student journalists “the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press.”

Illinois House Bill 2932, if passed, would amend the law to include protections for advisers who are retaliated against for standing up for students’ First Amendment rights. 

Journalism advisers play a critical role in guiding student journalists as they learn to report on real-world issues. They allow students, like me, to express their voice. 

As a student journalist, I rely on my adviser to answer my questions on reporting events, to suggest changes to strengthen my work, and most importantly, to foster an environment where I feel empowered to speak out on issues that impact people across my community. 

Advisers like him must be protected so they can empower future journalists without fear of retaliation.

Protections for advisers were originally a part of the 2016 bill but were stripped after opposition from teachers’ unions argued that it was unfair to grant advisers special protections. Yet, this argument ignores the unique risks journalism advisers face.

“I think that that’s problematic in the fact that our jobs are fundamentally different from a teacher’s job,” Cutlass adviser Sean Berleman said. “A teacher teaches within the confines of the classroom and everything stays insular.”

Advisers take on an immense added responsibility on top of their teaching jobs. They’re responsible for ensuring a newsroom full of high schoolers can freely express their opinions and report the truth. This also means that they are taking on a greater risk by overseeing a publication that’s free to criticize their administration.

“I think that’s a fundamental difference that should be recognized by the law,” Berleman said.

There are countless examples all over the country of advisers being transferred to another building within a school district or stripped of their adviser role when a student criticized the administration. 

“I have had situations where my staff was being pressured, the publication was being pressured, or I was being directly or indirectly intimidated,” said Ellen Austin, a former adviser at Palo Alto High School in California.

This indirect form of censorship—where advisers are targeted—sidesteps the safeguards students have against direct censorship and results in a chilling effect on student speech, discouraging open expression.

“Student journalism deserves consideration and support,” Iowa Judge Tyler J. Buller said. “Student newspapers are one of the few outlets that allow high school students to express themselves, debate and engage with ideas, and grow into meaningful, participating citizens.”

With censorship, this all changes. Student journalists no longer feel comfortable expressing themselves or delving into topics that deviate from the norm. Just like that, their First Amendment rights are silenced. 

Stan Zoller, the 2024 winner of the Candance and John Bowen Adviser First Amendment Award, stressed that this oversight in the law not only harms advisers but ultimately undermines the quality and integrity of student reporting.

Disciplining advisers sends a clear message to student journalists: Lay off stories the administration doesn’t like or your adviser will be sacked or censured. 

And when that happens, vital stories—about school safety, discrimination, and student concerns—go untold.

“When free speech becomes a trade-off with safety, fewer student journalists will be willing to write stories that they deem would lead to repercussions or backlashes,” former managing editor of The Chicago Maroon Yiwen Lu said.

If Illinois truly values press freedom, it must extend protections to those who make it possible. Journalism advisers should not have to choose between supporting students and protecting their own jobs. Without HB2932, the loophole in Illinois’ New Voices law will continue to silence student journalists—not through direct censorship but through fear and intimidation.

Illinois legislators have the power to fix this, but they need to hear from us. HB2932 is moving through the state legislature. Students, educators, and advocates should call, email and show up and let lawmakers know that student press freedom is non-negotiable. 

Without action, student journalism in Illinois will continue to operate under a silent threat.