Bill O'Reilly and the ruckus that wasn't

A high school dared to host a forum that, among other things, criticized aspects of the War on Drugs. Somehow, the event got tagged as a hotbed of treachery by everyone's favorite pitbull, Bill O'Reilly. Dave Kopel of Rocky Mountain News explains:

Caplis insists that teachers should have driven the students out of the auditorium because "within five minutes" the panel was promoting drug use and sex. In fact, the opening 10 minutes consisted of introductions and a presentation by Sanho Tree of the Institute for Policy Studies, who simply critiqued counterproductive programs, such as DARE, which loses credibility because of its reckless exaggerations....

Appearing on Bill O'Reilly's Fox TV show, The O'Reilly Factor, Caplis did not even know the name of the school's good-hearted and excellent principal Bud Jenkins, but was sure that Jenkins and every administrator should be fired. Heedless of First Amendment case law, O'Reilly proclaimed that the panel's speech constituted a crime. The only crime was perpetrated by the O'Reilly producer who, attempting to ambush interview school board President Helayne Jones, criminally trespassed into her garage.

As a Boulder High parent, I have discovered that the school is a much more tolerant place than the average large high school. Respect for freedom of speech is part of what makes Boulder High special.

O'Reilly tells the world that Bud Jenkins is "the villain." As Boulder High students are learning, media scandal-makers sometimes tell you much less than the full story.

[via Instapundit]

Gregory Requa: free speech hero?

The video took a teacher's hygiene to task. On YouTube. As a result, Gregory Requa, a student accused of producing it, was given a Noahic sentence: suspended for 40 days. Now, he's suing for his speech rights.

Requa's lawyer, Jeannette Cohen, said the teen didn't produce the video -- taken in an English classroom at Kentridge. But even if he did, his suspension is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, she argued in court.

"What is at stake here is the school district message that if you post things we don't like," you will be punished, Cohen said.

Kent School District lawyer Charles Lind says the suspension had nothing to do with online criticism of the teacher. Rather, it was punishment for the disruption created by the students secreting a video camera into Joyce Mong's class and dancing in a mocking, disrespectful manner while her back was turned.

"It's quite clear that the district is talking about conduct in the classroom and not the videotape," Lind said.

Lind is on shaky ground. If the only crime of Gregory Requa--3rd place, Travel and Tourism, DECA!--was the on-camera dance and mockathon, it would hardly merit a 40-day suspension, unless this is the culmination of a parade of incidents.

Absent the video and the discipline record, this blogger will withhold final judgment. One question, though: how thick is your skin, O teacher? Better be thick enough for YouTube.

Update: The judge agreed with the school, and Requa's suspension stands. A forty day vacation: that'll teach 'im.

speech is a commodity. who's bidding for yours?

Actually, TRP, you did just fine.

While I don't think Mayer should have been fired, I think she made a mistake in stating her own views to her students. Why not respond with a question? When the students ask "Would you protest the war?" why not say, "would you?" I don't see how she helped kids' learning by answering the question. She could have dodged it. I do every time it comes up, and I even tell them why: "In this classroom, my opinions are irrelevant. Your opinions are critically important, and they are valuable insofar as they are backed by evidence."

To put it another way, my experience tells me that telling kids my personal views about something complex like the Iraq war is unneccessary: a teacher can play devil's advocate on all sides. In fact, stating one's opinion is often counterproductive to student learning. I therefore believe it should be avoided in almost all cases.

But a firable offense? No way. Mayer's firing was a sad and unfortunate decision, and the courts' support of it could lead to some yucky outcomes. Would the school board in Indiana have canned Mayer if she had brought in a "Support our Troops" bumper sticker? If she had asked her class to write a letter of thanks to soldiers? I highly doubt it. This means that, under the current decision, the school board would gain the de facto power to select the appropriate political perspective to teach, and fire any dissenters. That's no good either.

Here's the irony that goes unmentioned:

The incident occurred in January 2003, when Mayer was teaching a class of fourth- through sixth-graders at Clear Creek Elementary School. As Mayer recalled it later, the question about peace marches arose during a discussion of an article in the children's edition of Time magazine, part of the school-approved curriculum, about protests against U.S. preparations for war in Iraq.

When the student asked the question about taking part in demonstrations, Mayer said, she replied that there were peace marches in Bloomington, that she blew her horn whenever she saw a "Honk for Peace" sign, and that people should seek peaceful solutions before going to war.

A student complained to her father, who complained to the principal, who canceled the school's annual "Peace Month" observance and told Mayer never to discuss the war or her political views in class [emphasis added].

Mayer was clearly within the range of reasonableness by advocating peace in the classroom, and the school district's claim that she was fired for incompetence, not for her politics, is evidence. The Court, though, would deny a teacher any sort of moral authority. A while back, our school hosted an assembly decrying school violence--an emotional remembrance of the Columbine tragedy. If I were like Mayer, and had said, "You know, kids, we should always seek a peaceful solution to our personal conflicts before using violent measures," and a parent had complained, I would hope and pray that my administration would stand up for the message they were already promoting.

Oh, and I'm glad I teach in a district where I'm not a script-spouting robot--attorney Francisco Negrón's world.

"Teachers bring their creativity, their energy, their skill in teaching the curriculum, but ... a teacher in K-12 is really not at liberty to design a curriculum," said Negrón, who filed arguments with the court in Mayer's case supporting the Bloomington school district. "That's the function of the school board."

Except in the most planned-out, constricting, intellectually deadening environments, teachers make curricular choices--even "design curriculum"--every day. We do it within a framework of age appropriateness and educational standards, but in our own words, in our own style. That's where our "creativity... energy... [and] skill" come in to play.

HB 1307 no longer applies to high school students

Sad news, as Jeff Nusser reports. Statements from Brian Schraum, Dave Upthegrove, and Kathy Schrier are available on his site.

Nusser, Schraum, and student journalists lobbied the hell out of this issue, and even convinced me to adopt their perspective: that the principal is not a publisher, and that our state law needs to clearly and specifically protect the rights of student journalists, not just in universities.

Nusser writes,

This is a tough day -- a sad day -- but we need to keep fighting. There will continue to be things that we all can do in Washington to fight unjust censorship of student media.

If I can learn what the law really says and abandon false assumptions, maybe others can, too--even nearsighted administrators. If we can't legislate, we can still educate.

Vashon Island student journalists show need for HB 1307

What counts as a substantial disruption to the educational process? In Vashon Island, it takes only a few phone calls.

“I’m very frustrated,” Amanda Zheutlin, one of three co-editors of the Riptide, said in an interview this week. “I don’t think they made the decision because the article was illegal or bad. I think it was controversial and they don’t want controversy.”

The Riptide is a district-supported newspaper and by district policy the principal may review the contents before the paper goes to print. Officials can prohibit publication if there is evidence indicating it could cause a substantial disruption of school, such as a riot or a walkout.

Vashon High School Principal Susan Hanson, in a letter to the student editors written after consulting with district Superintendent Marguerite Walker, said that the newspaper is not “an appropriate vehicle for airing concerns, complaints and criticisms of District staff.”

Hanson also raised concerns about “the fairness and open-mindedness of the article and possible defamation claims.”

Students said they met with Walker and she contended the coach story would disrupt school operations by generating phone calls to her, Hanson and the athletic director.

The article was reviewed by the Student Press Law Center and found to be fair to its subject, despite Hanson's objection. (Defamation can be claimed only if an allegation is false.)

HB 1307 would place liability squarely on the students writing the piece, forcing them to take the utmost caution with inflammatory facts. It would allow the charges to be discussed in an open forum, rather than remaining the stuff of innuendo and rumor. And, mostly, it would respect the right of student journalists to promote truth in the public interest.

HB 1307 passes, overcomes major hurdle

So points out Jeff Nusser. It's not over, though:

The bill still must be passed by the state Senate and signed into law by Gov. Christine Gregoire before it will take effect....

What next? The process starts all over again. You can contact your legislative district's senator and urge them to support the bill. It will need to go through another pair of committees before potentially coming up for another vote. Also, a number of student publications have written editorials supporting the bill, another excellent form of showing support for the bill -- especially when clipped and sent to your senator.

Find your legislator here. You can also urge support of this bill through the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000.

Congrats to Nusser and to all who have strongly and consistently advocated for student rights. They even convinced me that first amendment issues were clear, and that fears of blowback were exaggerated. I regret only that it took me so long to leave the dark side.

reporters closer to shield; bloggers still brandishing dagger

By a 41-7 vote, the Senate passed a measure providing reporters--employees of news-gathering organizations, mostly--with specific confidentiality protection.

The bill would grant reporters absolute privilege for protecting confidential sources the same exemption from testifying in court that is granted to spouses, attorneys, clergy and police officers.

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, the bill's main sponsor, said it was necessary to give the public "greater opportunity to know what's going on in this world, because somebody out there who may have some very sensitive information is now going to be more willing to come forward with it."

It'll get mashed into a form acceptable to the House, and then land on Gregoire's desk for a likely signature.

If the House version prevails, bloggers may have some protection. If the Senate version prevails, we'll be left out in the cold of the chilling effect.

Rep. Rodne: don't amend HB 1307

Jeff Nusser sends word of an amendment that would exempt high schools from respecting full speech rights for high school journalists. At a time when student expression of all kinds is increasingly under attack, HB 1307 is all the more important. If you have the time, encourage Rodne to keep it relevant and drop the amendment excluding high school journalists.

principal without principle: another free speech case

Via Ed Brayton, word of another principal on a power trip:

A student editorial in the Woodlan Junior-Senior High School newspaper calling for more tolerance for gays and lesbians sparked the principal to seek approval of each edition before it goes to print and issue a written warning against the journalism teacher....

Sophomore Megan Chase wrote an opinion piece – her first for the newspaper – that appeared in the Jan. 19 issue of the Woodlan Tomahawk that questioned people who believe it’s wrong to be gay or lesbian. Chase said she wrote the piece after a friend disclosed to her he was gay.

“I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society,” Chase wrote. “I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you. There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they’re just different than you.”

Principal Edwin Yoder wrote a letter to the newspaper staff and journalism teacher Amy Sorrell insisting he sign off on every issue. Sorrell and the students contacted the Student Press Law Center, an advocacy group for student newspapers, which advised them to appeal the decision.

Last week, Yoder issued Sorrell a written warning for insubordination and not carrying out her responsibilities as a teacher. He accused her of exposing Woodlan students, who are in grades seven through 12, to inappropriate material and said if she did not comply with his orders she could be fired.

Yoder would not comment for this story, but Melin, who said he hasn’t read the editorial, said school officials do not have an issue with the topic but with the lack of balance and thoroughness in the opinion piece. Sorrell also should have consulted with Yoder before the article was printed, Melin said...

Melin said EACS has had a policy since 2003 that states principals have the authority to review each issue of a student publication before it goes to print. It’s up to the individual principal how he or she wants to enforce it, Melin said.

This is why Bruce Ramsey has it exactly backward: the issue of student censorship isn't about power-hungry English teachers, but about power-drunk principals who want to personally control the school paper. The more I think about it, the more I see just how badly we need HB 1307.

USA Today supports student journalists and HB 1307

Reader Nuss points us to a USA Today op-ed supporting HB 1307, the speech-rights-for-journalism bill. The gist:

The legislation pending in Washington state would give principals the right to see student publications before they go to press, but prohibit censorship or stopping of publication unless material is obscene, libelous or slanderous.

A major function of schools is to prepare students for life in a democracy. And one of the cornerstones of democracy is the free exchange of ideas. Lessons in bowing to life under censorship shouldn't be part of the curriculum.

As for the bill in question, it's sitting in the Rules Committee awaiting a second reading. With Democrats in charge, it seems likely to move into the House fairly quickly.

Update: I should add that Mr. Nuss has created a blog to keep track of the issue. It, and his personal blog, will soon be added to the roll.

HB 1307 all about power-hungry journalism teachers, columnist claims

In an op-ed for the Times, Bruce Ramsey dials in a lot of the same issues we've already discussed here. However, he adds another wrinkle to the debate:

HB 1307 would give students the entire power at public colleges and most of the power in public high schools — which is where the controversy is. It would allow the high-school principal to read the paper before going to press and to make changes to avoid libel, invasion of privacy or incitement to disruption. If he changed anything, he and the school district could face a lawsuit for going beyond these exceptions. If he changed nothing, all the liability would be held by the student editor (and perhaps his parents).

The students who spoke for the bill said they were willing to take the responsibility. But when a teenager says, "I'll take the responsibility," what does it mean? Maybe not a lot.

Most interesting was the attitude of the teachers. They all supported the bill. Though it would leave a teacher with no more legal power than the principal, legal power is not the only kind of power there is. The teacher is with the students. Often the conflicts over what can be printed are between the teacher and the principal.

Really, this is a bill to enhance the power of journalism teachers. It allows the students to pretend they are adult journeymen, which they are not, and allows the teachers to get the principals off their backs. It has little to do with the world those students will inhabit if they go to work for a real newspaper.

HB 1307: one step forward

In the mad rush of events, I had almost forgotten about Brian Schraum's notes defending HB 1307, the bill that would make student journalists entirely responsible for their own content. Here are my thoughts in response, after reflection. I had originally argued that the First Amendment (at least, in my non-legal-scholarly estimation) doesn't protect your right to publish in someone else's medium.

After studying the issue in more depth, I've come to agree much more with Schraum's position than I initially had--that it is possible for students to "own" their work in a newspaper. I've looked over some of the cases where students have successfully received injunctive relief from "arbitrary and capricious" prohibitions or viewpoint discrimination. (The former language was used to allow a student to publish a yearbook photo of himself in chain mail. Nerd.) I hadn't really looked into the SPLC, and now I'm much more impressed with the constitutional protections of student speech.

However, I see Hazelwood as a reasonable position that has been unreasonably interpreted by overzealous--make that paranoid--administrators. The SPLC reports that calls to their hotlines have increased mightily in the years since Hazelwood, yet under that ruling, all a savvy newspaper teacher has to do is include express language in the publication to the effect that the newspaper is indeed a forum for the school, and not just an assignment or a function of a particular class. ("Underground," student-produced newspapers are fully protected, as are other routes of student expression.)

Schraum writes,

[In Hazelwood the] Court justified control of student newspapers simply because the public might falsely think the expression reflected that of the school. This is simply not the case; I don't think any reasonable person would look at a student newspaper and think that a principal was responsible for everything in it.

Maybe Schraum has never had to take angry parent phone calls--or maybe he automatically discounts such calls as "unreasonable"--but since administrators constantly have to justify school actions to the community, I'd like to see evidence that "reasonable people" don't (or shouldn't) confuse what's in the school newspaper with what the school condones or takes responsibility for--especially when the school is paying for it.

Schraum, though, also oversimplifies SCOTUS's claims in Hazelwood regarding the defining First Amendment case, Tinker vs. Des Moines.

We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986), and must be "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Tinker, supra, at 506; cf. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 341-343 (1985). A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission," Fraser, supra, at 685, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Accordingly, we held in Fraser that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was "sexually explicit" but not legally obscene at an official school assembly, because the school was entitled to "disassociate itself" from the speech in a manner [484 U.S. 260, 267] that would demonstrate to others that such vulgarity is "wholly inconsistent with the 'fundamental values' of public school education." 478 U.S., at 685-686. We thus recognized that "[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board," id., at 683, rather than with the federal courts

HB 1307 still allows administrators to intervene, as long as they have evidence of the potential for material disruption.

It all comes down to the ownership question. Journalism teachers and students who value free expression--and there aren't enough of either--should take the steps to declare their paper a public forum, ensuring full constitutional protection for writers. If these steps are taken, HB 1307 could be entirely superfluous.

Two uncertainties remain. If HB 1307 passes, will paranoid administrators eliminate journalism classes, using excuses like "we don't have the money" or "we need more classes for WASL prep?" Second, will students face an even greater "chilling effect" once they realize they are personally liable for their content?

Brian Schraum defends HB 1307

Brian Schraum has sent word that, along partisan lines, the House Judiciary Committee has approved House Bill 1307, which would give student journalists full responsibility for their publications. In a separate email, Schraum responds to my thoughts, writing,

You are not alone in making the argument that the school is the publisher/owner of the newspaper, and for that reason should be able to determine the content. The analogy you make, about me demanding to publish something in The Olympian, simply does not hold up. Even the federal courts, which have caused so much damage to the rights of students, recognized this: "The university is clearly an arm of the state and this single fact will always distinguish it from the purely private publisher as far as censorship rights are concerned" (Bazaar v. Fortune). The same holds true for any public school.

Things which are produced at school do not automatically become property of school officials. If that were the case, teachers and professors could claim credit for all student work -- slap their name on it and face no penalty. I don't think that's a just outcome. The same holds true for student newspapers; the work is that of students, regardless of the medium that might be used.

The Supreme Court's Hazelwood decision, which we are seeking to curb with this bill, had not so much to do with that as it did with "perception," in my opinion. The Court justified control of student newspapers simply because the public might falsely think the expression reflected that of the school. This is simply not the case; I don't think any reasonable person would look at a student newspaper and think that a principal was responsible for everything in it.

Boil this down to its core components: you have the government (school officials), and journalists (student reporters). I just don't happen to think government control of journalism does anyone any good.

The core of our disagreement seems to be about who "owns" the newspaper. I strongly disagree with the idea that the school "owns" the newspaper... the closest you might be able to come up with is that "the people" own it. Even if that were the case, we have regulations on how government conducts the peoples' business. Censorship rules are among those. We are attempting to strike a much more reasonable balance with this legislation.

I fully agree with you that no school should be required to support a student newspaper. In fact, many student publications are produced outside of class time, largely or entirely with advertising dollars that students themselves collect. The school is free to decide if it wants to provide financial aid to the publication, or offer credit for working on it... but doing so gives them no more right to censor it than I would have to censor The Olympian by paying for a subscription.

I'll have a response to post shortly. I thank Mr. Schraum for his permission to publish his thoughts.

right for the wrong reasons: giving student journalists greater autonomy

In The Olympian this morning, a report on the student journalists who descended on the Capitol, full of righteous rhetoric:

"The question is simple: 'Are we people?' The Constitution provides that people have fundamental rights of speech," testified Brian Schraum, a Green River Community College graduate now attending Washington State University.

He brought the issue to lawmakers after a federal court ruling in the Midwest said universities could review articles before publication.

"Look into the eyes of students in the audience. We are people," Schraum challenged the lawmakers.

Strong words, but weak logic. It might interest Mr. Schraum to know that he has no First Amendment right to publish in The Olympian, on a bathroom stall at Applebee's, on this blog, or wherever someone else owns the medium. Schools are not even obligated to have student newspapers, never mind fund them or make them part of the course offerings.

Would Schraum support legislation to let a professional journalist sue The Olympian for refusing to run an article, whatever the editor's excuse? I hope not. Yet, analogously, that's what this legislation demands: "injunctive and declaratory relief" whenever a paranoid administrator reaches for the Wite-Out.

Let's examine some of the arguments offered in Schraum's defense by a fellow student journalist (and former student of mine).

Just as local newspapers offer residents a place to voice and vent their concerns and critiques, so too does a student-run newspaper give students a place to voice their opinions.

However, residents can't sue when their letter to the editor isn't published--and, as I mentioned before, neither can reporters when their bosses trash a story that might offend a prominent advertiser. Weasely, sure, but not a rights violation.

When student newspapers are censored, students no longer have a place for their concerns to be heard.

This is simply false. The school newspaper is hardly students' only medium for a message. (This also means that administrators have no business attempting to interfere in student expression outside the classroom.)

Student newspapers, though instituted through the school, are actually run by students. It's not a forum for the school as a whole, but specifically for the students, the primary readership. Thus they, not administration, should be in control of the content.

Maybe in the Workers World the paper runs that way, but every other paper in existence has a chain of command.

Just as a local newspaper can choose what it prints, a student newspaper should be given the same right.

A local paper can choose what it prints--but not really. Editors, reporters, readers, community standards, journalistic ethics, and almighty advertisers all shape content--and, as I've stated before, the owner has the final say.

One thing Schraum, Watts, and everyone else should agree upon: in Watts' words, "Too little faith is put in students' ability to determine appropriateness and to handle controversial topics." I want student journalists to be given greater responsibility to challenge and provoke their peers in the service of learning. My desire, though, arises from practical, not sacred, obligations. It's because I want smarter, savvier journalists, not because of a righteous misreading of the First Amendment.

There are other ways to get administrators to cave, each a potential civics lesson. Protests. (Professional) media coverage. Angry parent phone calls. Reasoned, impassioned argument. And, dare I say it, blogging. Ill-founded, won't-survive-the-appeals-court lawsuits aren't the answer.



(Bill text here [pdf]. Bill history here.)

free speech rights for students: a student's perspective

Guest-blogger and former CHS student journalist (and present WSU staffer) Christina Watts responds to my thoughts on the proposed legislation that would protect free speech rights for high school journalists. She writes,

I work with Brian Schraum, the WSU student who approached Upthegrove about a need for the bill. I'm glad the legislature is finally looking at the issue of student journalists and their rights.

Just as local newspapers offer residents a place to voice and vent their concerns and critiques, so too does a student-run newspaper give students a place to voice their opinions. This is why the bill being introduced by Upthegrove is important.

Not only do students deserve and need a forum to share their voice about school issues, but they need to know that in sharing their ideas, they won't be penalized. Working on the Outlook, even without being under principal review at the time, we ran into several instances where word of our content was released and we were told to remove it. Too little faith is put in students' ability to determine appropriateness and to handle controversial topics. When student newspapers are censored, students no longer have a place for their concerns to be heard.

It is true that many student newspapers are run through public schools and should therefore contribute to the educational process. This doesn't mean, however, that censoring student newspapers, a practice which has been done across the state as well as across the country, is the best course of action to take. In the past, schools have censored articles about birth control, homosexuality, and drug use, all issues students become familiar with merely by going school. To say these issues weren't relevant or important to students at school was ignorant, and yet the articles were still censored.

Student newspapers, though instituted through the school, are actually run by students. It's not a forum for the school as a whole, but specifically for the students, the primary readership. Thus they, not administration, should be in control of the content.

This bill, which would protect students' rights as journalists, would also at the same time make them accountable and responsible as journalists. Just as a local newspaper can choose what it prints, a student newspaper should be given the same right.

freedom of speech for student journalists

Your local newspaper has no obligation to give you a bully pulpit, and they don't even have to publish your anti-corporate screed in the letters to the editor. You don't have the right because you don't own it.

Local papers know, though, that allowing a diverse array of viewpoints, by stoking controversy, we can smack some sense into Our Great Republic (or, at very least, the city council). The First Amendment protects that function.

It does not, however, give you a right to publish in someone else's forum.

For that reason, this proposed legislation can't match intentions and outcomes.

Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines, has introduced legislation that would allow advisers to review student publications but strip them of any authority to control what is printed. Instead, students would be in charge of writing, editing and publishing — and would be liable for any fallout....

By granting students added freedoms and accountability, Upthegrove hopes to generate an appreciation for constitutional rights and give young people a sense of civic responsibility.

The Supreme Court has already been there, Upthegrove. A school newspaper isn't a public forum. It's taxpayer-funded and beholden to the greater needs of the "educational process." Thou shalt not disrupt it.

However, the disingenuous stance of the Washington Association of School Administrators bothers me, too:

If students want to voice their opinions without restraints, he suggests they turn elsewhere. Between blogs and personal Web sites, Kipp said, "There are lots of opportunities that kids have in school to express whatever they want."

Except that administrators block access to both blogs and personal websites, and have even gone after students for publishing anti-school materials at home.

It's a delicate balance, and administrators usually lean too far on the side of tyranny, afraid that controversy is in itself disruptive. A wise administrator knows when to let students take the fall.

On balance, I'd probably support the bill, even though I'm not sure how well making students liable will work when the first lawsuit rolls in. Accountability, after all, is another word for litigation.