‘Students Threaten a Lawsuit’

As a former high school newspaper editor and, much later, school newspaper faculty adviser, I sympathize with both the student journalists and school administrators in the Hunter College High School censorship case discussed on the front page of the May 10, 2006, issue [“Hunter Students Threaten a Lawsuit Over Yearbook,” Deborah Kolben].

Sadly, I must side with the school in curbing what it regards as inappropriate “jokes” in the school yearbook.

Years ago, the United States Supreme Court declared that contrary to what many people might believe or wish, students do not have an absolute “freedom of speech.” The two U.S. Supreme Court cases most often cited regarding the rights of school administrations to censor student expression, in speech and in publication are Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988).

At the very least, the students should take consolation in the knowledge that their experience will prepare them for the real world, where a supervisor/manager/employer invariably oversees and effectively “censors” what may or may not be communicated. And that person/company – again sadly – is often within their rights.

GEORGE HABER
Jericho, N.Y.

‘Homeowners and Landmarking’

In a response to my concerns regarding landmark designation, the Law Department of New York City this month apprised me that “while the Landmarks Commission seeks and encourages community and property owners’ participation and support when considering proposed landmark designations, neither is a required condition for the designation of a landmark” [“Fieldston Homeowners Pay To Thwart Landmarking Plan,” Andrew Wolf, New York, March 7, 2006].

The letter continues, “… the determination as to whether a building or a district is to be landmarked is not the subject of a referendum or vote by the community or property owners.”

Even though one of the Landmark Commission’s brochures refers to an application process, this letter states that “a formal application process does not exist. The commission considers eligible buildings and districts for designation in response to suggestions from many sources, including groups and individuals as well as the observations of Commission members and staff.”

Invoking Landmark Laws to resolve problems resulting from unenforced building codes, inadequate zoning laws, indiscriminate variances, corruption, and lack of oversight is disingenuous. The homeowners’ association is admittedly seeking landmark designation to prevent what they deem “grossly incompatible improvements.” This is neither the intent nor spirit of the Landmark Laws.

The focus of the association and our elected representatives should be on improving and updating zoning and building codes and not on limiting the rights of the homeowners. Restricting and regulating homeowners’ property rights may stifle their proclivity to enhance and enrich the “gracious sense of place” they created in the first place.

New York City landmark laws limit the right of the homeowners to choose, consent and support decisions that will affect their properties. Property rights of homeowners are superseded by “suggestions from many sources, groups and individuals as well as the observations of Commission members and staff.” In other words, homeowners need not apply.

ED KONECNIK
Flushing, N.Y.