Questions for thought #3 continuing a series
Here’s a question in our series raising a variety of Questions for Thought. Hopefully, as you consider answers, you and your students will address some important principles of scholastic journalism. Our Constitution Day lessons can now be accessed from the menu bar above, titled Constitution Day 2011.
#3: What would happen if press freedoms would be restrained just once? Take one incident and extend the repercussions into the future. For example, what would happen if the school board refused just once to allow reporting of a controversial issue?
Read MoreConstitution Day lesson plans, resources for 2011
Constitution Day Lesson Plans for Sept. 16, 2011
Our Constitution Day lesson plans provided here are designed to help students celebrate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as mandated by Congress. Legislation requires schools to offer lessons on the Constitution and how it affects all Americans. Our lesson plans emphasize the First Amendment and particularly the freedoms of speech and the press.
The first unit has two parts. The first is intended as an overview of the First Amendment while the second applies Freedom of Speech as addressed in a Philadelphia Inquirer article by Michael Smerconish. A PDF accompanies this article (or you can download it as a PowerPoint) and there is an extensive list of additional resources.
The second unit includes a quick discussion of interpreting the Constitution and then explores off campus speech using real and hypothetical scenarios. Possible solutions for the scenarios will be available early this week.
The third unit examines a 2011 Washington court case that established schools are not liable for what student newspapers publish as long as the content is not reviewed by school administrators prior to publication. We will have more on this court decision in the coming months.
Lori Keekley
for JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Commission and the Constitution Day Committee
Constitution Day Committee:
Megan Fromm, Ph.D.
Lori Keekley, teacher, St. Louis Park High School (MN)
Jeff Kocur, teacher, Hopkins High School (MN)
Chris Waugaman, teacher, Prince George High School (VA)
John Bowen and Mark Goodman, Kent State University (OH) contributed resources
Questions for thought: a series of exercises on freedom of expression
Our second Question for Thought involves a common argument for censorship: Damaging the public’s image of the school or its programs.
• Explore instances where scholastic media excess damaged public trust, a belief in the First Amendment and/or a school system. What led to the excess? How best could it have been prevented? What actions, including censorship, would have prevented it? Would we be better off limiting our freedoms to avoid the excesses? Why or why not? Using a a process determined by the instructor, sketch out an approach that could have prevented the excess.
Read MoreQuestions for thought 1
As the new year starts, we face many issues. Some arise daily. Others reside in the background until events force them on us. These broad philosophical issues often are questions we need to answer before they become crucial.
Over the next several posts we will raise a variety of Questions for Thought. Hopefully, as you consider answers, you and your students will address some important principles of scholastic journalism.
We hope these questions might prove to be worthy assignments and that you might share some of your activities through the comments section here.
Question #1:
School officials argue prior review is important because school media represent the image of the school to the community. Analyze this argument and make two sets of recommendations: one supporting prior review, the other arguing against it. Develop criteria and arguments for each position. Find a neutral audience or class and arrange a debate to generate discussion and – hopefully – an action plan on the subject.
Read MoreGuidelines, recommendations for advisers facing prior review
Based on an increase in the number of of prior review incidents and administrative attacks on advisers, we are reposting this information.
At the spring 2010 Portland JEA/NSPA convention, JEA’s board passed a definition of prior review and prior restraint. The SPLC also recently endorsed the statement.
At the time, the Press Right Commission was directed to design a recommended process and guidelines on how advisers might handle prior review if faced with it. Below you will find those guidelines and process along with links to supporting philosophy and resources. We welcome your input.
While we know advisers will make decisions regarding prior review and other educational issues based on what they believe they can best support philosophically, JEA reiterates its strong rejection of prior review, and hence prior restraint, as a tool in the educational process. With that belief, we feel an obligation to help advisers faced with this situation.
Statements to accompany JEA’s definitions of prior review and restraint:
As journalism teachers, we know our students learn more when they make publication choices and that prior review or restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism.
As journalism teachers, we know the only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to give them the responsibility to make those decisions freely.
As journalism teachers, we know democracy depends on students understanding all voices have a right to be heard and knowing they have a voice in their school and community.
Thus, to help students achieve work that is up to professional standards, journalism educators should consider the following process:
• Encourage transparency about who determines the content of a student publication by alerting readers and viewers when student media are subject to prior review and restraint;
• Advocate the educational benefits of student press freedom if student media are subject to prior review or restraint;
• Provide students with access to sources of professional advice outside the school for issues they need to address;
• Provide students with tools that include adequate knowledge and resources to successfully carry out their work. By using these tools, we build trust in the learning process and the theories on which it is based;
• Encourage students to seek multiple points of view and to explore a variety of credible sources in their reporting and decision-making;
• Coach instead of make requirements or demands thus modeling the value of the learning process and demonstrating the trust we place in our educational system;
• Empower students to know the difference between sound and unsound journalism and how to counsel their peers about potential dangers;
• Model a professional newsroom atmosphere where students share in and take responsibility for their work. In so doing, we increase dialogue and help ensure civic and journalistic responsibility;
• Use peer editing to encourage student interaction, analysis and problem solving;
• Instruct students about civic engagement and journalism’s role in maintaining and protecting our democratic heritage;
• Showcase student media where the dissemination of information is unfiltered by prior review and restraint so the school’s various communities receive accurate, truthful and complete information.
Recommended process if facing prior review, restraint
If, after employing the above techniques, student journalists still object to changes an adviser discusses, the following describes a process to handle potential disagreement:
1. Adviser and students disagree about content for publication.
2. Adviser and students discuss all angles of the disagreement; they try to find common ground.
3. The adviser and students decide if the disagreement is based on an ethical issue or a legal one.
4. If violations of libel, obscenity, unwarranted invasion of privacy, copyright infringement or material disruption of the school process are likely at stake, the adviser urges students to get advice of the Student Press Law Center or reliable legal resource. Not just any school lawyer or administrator will do. The resource, which could include non-live information, must be reputable for scholastic media. The phrase “unprotected speech” might not be enough because Hazelwood so muddied the concept.
5. If the disagreement is not over a legal consideration, the adviser urges students to consider the “red light” or similar questions raised by The Poynter Institute to see how various stakeholders might react if the material is published. Students see and consider the possible outcomes of publication and discuss with the adviser ramifications of their actions.
6. Adviser and students continue to discuss and explore alternative approaches until they reach a point of no possible agreement.
7. This process fulfills the adviser’s commitment to advise, not to make or require decisions, and to be cognizant of his/her responsibilities to school and students.
The Journalism Education Association reiterates its position that prior review and prior restraint violate its Adviser Code of Ethics and educational philosophy.
Additional links and resources:
• 10 Tips for Covering Controversial Subjects from the press rights commission website
• Just this once
• JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics from the commission blog. Scroll to the bottom
• Questions to ask those who would prior review
• JEA’s statement on prior review from the JEA website
• Results of a Master’s study on prior review and publication awards from the commission’s website
• Resources from the press rights commission on developing professional standards from press rights website
• NSPA Model Code of Ethics for student journalists from NSPA’s website
Read More