Journalism adviser pulled from post at California high school, wins reinstatement

A high school journalism educator reassigned in late March 2025 from his teaching and advising roles in retaliation for his students’ reporting later sued the San Francisco school district and, in January 2026, was ordered reinstated by a California judge.

Eric Gustafson was informed by Lowell High School Principal Jan Bautista that he was being removed from the posts starting the fall of 2025. According to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle, he was told the decision was based on his handling of two articles published by the student-run school newspaper, The Lowell.

District officials maintained that the reassignment “had nothing to do with the content of the student journalism that was produced under the current teacher’s leadership,” reported the Chronicle. Gustafson, who had held the positions since 2017, was reassigned to teach English, and another Lowell faculty member was moved into his place.

In June 2025, Gustafson filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District, arguing that his reassignment violated California Education Code 48907, which protects journalism advisers from retaliation when school administrators are angered or upset by the content of student reporting.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge ultimately ruled in his favor on Jan. 26, 2026, saying the district violated state law that protects student journalists and their staff advisers by retaliating against Gustafson over what the court said administrators deemed “controversial” reporting.

The motivation for reassignment “was to impact the editorial content of The Lowell in a way that they could not accomplish directly,” Superior Court Judge Christine Van Aken wrote in her court order, confirming the district had violated California education code with the reassignment.

According to the court order, administrators had requested advance review in 2023 of a student article that explored drug use on campus. In October 2024, administrators again requested to see an article before publication that alleged verbal harassment of students by Lowell High School teachers. Gustafson said that in his adviser role and under the law, he did not interfere with the students’ reporting and deferred to their editorial decisions.

The students proceeded to publish without submitting to prior review. A third story that administrators reportedly found problematic, about the use of AI in the classroom, was not published.

After learning of Gustafson’s removal, the paper’s staff expressed solidarity with their media adviser in the May 19, 2025, edition of The Lowell, saying his removal “signifies a step towards limiting student voices in our publication.”

“We cover difficult topics in order to bring attention to them,” they wrote. “While these issues are often challenging to address, the guidance that we receive from Mr. Gustafson helps us fully realize these ideas in our articles while holding our work to high standards.”

According to the Student Press Law Center, the court’s January decision is the first known test of the California adviser provision, which took effect in 2009 and specifically protects staff who work with journalism students.

“This is a really important win, not just for the adviser at Lowell High School, but for student media advisers and their students across the state,” SPLC Senior Legal Counsel Mike Hiestand said in an email to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

“This judge agreed that the law means what it says. It has teeth,” he added. “School officials cannot do an end-around past laws that explicitly protect student media from censorship by using their role as employers to punish student media advisers.”

Gustafson told the Tracker on Feb. 5 that his lawyers had met with the school attorneys and the negotiations were ongoing for his reinstatement, which the court ordered to take place within 30 days of its Jan. 26 ruling. It’s still unclear whether Gustafson’s reinstatement date will occur during the current academic year or in the fall.

Either way, Gustafson told the Tracker, he was satisfied with the court’s decision. “The vindication comes in the ruling and the clarification of student rights,” he said.