Overland situation settled – for now – although questions remain
According to both the Denver Post and the Student Press Law Center, the Overland Scout will retain its adviser and lose prior review – for the remainder of this year’s issues.
Unsettled, however, is what happens next year, both to the Scout and to the adviser.
“School and district officials maintain that the situation was a misunderstanding and that the newspaper was never shut down,” the Post reported April 4. “Cherry Creek School District spokeswoman Tustin Amole said that Lundie (the school’s principal) was unaware of a separate printing fund the district provides for printing newspapers and thought that they did not have the budget for further issues.”
SPLC attorney advocate Adam Goldstein said the problems have not been resolved, but that it was a good first step.
“Firing the adviser in May for what the students wrote isn’t more permissible than it is in March,” he said. “We still need assurances that this program will still exist as vibrant as it ever has.”
Unanswered questions remain:
• The school reportedly wants to move the existing publication online, although it now will not permit online student media to use last names. That policy would have to be changed, and it is not known how an online publication would fit into existing student media policies.
• With such a move, will the district retain the adviser or seek someone else?
• Will the district attempt to reinstate prior review?
• Will the idea of moving from print to online journalism affect other schools in the district?
• Will the principal’s idea for change alter existing concepts of journalism the district teaches and students practice at other schools?
For the latest information, please check out these sources:
• Overland High School official statement from the principal and official policy statement
• Overland High School relents
• Overland principal: student newspaper to continue publishing
Read MoreStudents forced to publish censored paper
Turkeys in the news tomorrow may not be just on people’s plates.
Lately, some have been dressed as administrators at Stevenson High in Lincolnshire, Illinois.
First, school officials’ objections held up the paper’s initial release. Then they forced journalism students to remove several stories and several pages from the latest issue.
Next, administrators demanded the issue run despite student objections. According to information in the Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune, administrators wouldn’t allow students to remove their bylines from the stories and threatened to fail the student journalists if they did not do as told.
Prior review, administrators said last year when a previous dispute occurred, would only last a short time.
They were right about one thing. Review is now prior restraint of the least educationally defensible kind.
Executive director of the Student Press Law center, Frank LoMonte, called administrative actions a confession that they had lied.
“Stevenson’s conduct today is a confession that its administrators lied when they claimed in a press release last week that they had problems with only one story in the Statesman,” he said. “We trust that the school board will immediately investigate the source of this intentionally false public statement and will remove any employee who played a role in distributing it.
LoMonte also praised student editors.
“Student editors have dealt with Stevenson in an honest, professional and restrained manner, attempting to work out a peaceful resolution. Their reward for it was a sucker-punch in the gut. To threaten the highest-achieving students in the school with flunking journalism, potentially endangering their college careers, simply confirms that Stevenson puts its image ahead of the well-being of its students. When a school tries this hard to silence student journalism, the public should start asking hard questions about what is going on at Stevenson High School that its administrators are so desperate to conceal.”
This Thanksgiving the communities that send their students to Stevenson definitely may want to be thinking of ways to deal with these leftover turkeys.
For related reporting and coverage, go here, here, here and here.
Read MoreMove over, Michael Myers. There’s a new slasher in town.
It really must be the season of the witch.
The Student Press Law Center today tweeted yearbook censorship in a Summerville, Georgia, high school. According to a WRCB-TV report, the new principal censored the fall-released yearbook prepared by students and their now retired adviser last spring.
His target: four pages of shirtless boys playing basketball.
The pages were cut from the book. Slashed, leaving ragged edges, tattered memories.
The reason: “Inadvertently,” WRCB-TV quoted the new principal, ” the school administration did not approve the 2008 -2009 yearbook in its entirety; there were several photographs that did not reflect an appropriate image of the school or our community. The pages which contained the photos were removed.” The principal declined further comment.
If that does not bring a chill, consider that other photos of boys without shirts remain in the yearbook.
The system’s superintendent told the television station the principal “is trying to improve the image of the school, and the academic programs of the school. He has it headed in the right direction.”
It is a direction the former adviser does not approve.
In a video section of the report the retired adviser said he was very disappointed with the decision to mutilate the yearbook.
” There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about the pages that were cut from the book,” the adviser of 27 years was quoted on the video. “I am offended by the lack of regard shown for the students pictured on those page, the students who worked on the yearbook staff last year, and most of all, the students who purchased the yearbook.”
So say we all.
Move over Michael Myers. There is a new slasher in town and, frighteningly enough, another tale of horror in yet another town.
Read MoreSelf-censorship is scariest of all
All week I’ve heard plans for creepy costume parties, haunted house visits and horror film marathons. But as Halloween weekend approaches, there’s something much scarier on my mind.
It’s scary how many media staffs and their advisers are under fire right now for doing exactly what they set out to do: report on issues of impact and interest to their students. The current situation at Timberland High School in Wentzville, Mo. is just one example of many. Stories of little consequence, such as the homecoming court or club happenings, rarely draw attention. But the ones that matter — the ones that have potential to help students — come under fire at an alarming rate, despite thorough research, credible sources and top-notch student reporting.
It’s scary when kids grapple with these big issues and how to cover them well. But it’s even scarier when they don’t. Good journalism — and the whole part about critical thinking, student leadership and free expression — stops when kids decide to censor themselves.
All too often I hear my kids during staff brainstorming sessions say things like, “People would freak out if we covered that,” or “[Insert administrator names] would give us a really hard time if we did that.” Despite frequent discussion of media law and a dissection of the ed code, I still hear, “We can’t do that, can we?”
In most cases, they can. And in many cases, they should. It’s easy to see why kids might be inclined to shy away from the good stories, the real stories. After all, many advisers share updates in class of programs facing censorship and use these as teachable moments. We read the controversial articles, discuss the situations and follow the stories over an extended period of time. Kids are interested and engage in meaningful discussion, but I realized lately that they might not be taking away the message we think we’re sending. Do our students come away inspired and empowered, or are they afraid of censorship, administrative retaliation or the risk of losing a beloved adviser?
Scary possibilities, to be sure.
We can combat self-censorship with a few simple strategies:
(1) Continue to expose students to outstanding journalism, both from students and from the pros. Read it, discuss it, analyze it. Nothing beats an important story done well.
(2) When students begin to talk themselves out of a sensitive story topic, encourage them to revisit your mission statement and/or editorial policies. Teach students to weigh the options: how many readers might be helped or touched by this story? What’s the potential for good here? How far might this story reach?
(3) Get outside your school bubble. You know your school community, yes, but have you looked at how other student media have covered similar stories? Are others in your city, state, region affected by the same topics? Is there an opportunity to learn from the experience of others? Collaborate?
(4) Point to a wide variety of resources so students have support. When students feel confident in their research and reporting skills, they’re confident tackling bigger stories. Establish a team-oriented staff culture so that students have peers willing to help with research and interviewing. Good student journalists know how much work is involved in getting a story right; they might talk themselves out of tackling the topic because they know a sensitive story often involves extra effort. Again, work together.
(5) Make sure students understand how to utilize expert assistance from the SPLC and feel comfortable doing so. Consider role-playing sample scenarios in class. Encourage student editors to create a plan in the event that a situation arises. It’s like a fire drill — we don’t expect to be in a fire but we practice the drill and know how to call 911 if we need to. Then we’re free to go about our daily lives and focus on what matters.
If staffers have a plan in place, covering a potentially controversial subject doesn’t seem so scary.
Sarah Nichols, MJE
Read MoreFor those who support prior review…
… When will it end?
At least three more recent situations should make one think about the educational validity of prior review:
• One, in Missouri, concerns a story on tattoos. It also led to students changing the content of their paper.
• The second, in Ohio, concerns an obituary and photo. According to the Student Press Law Center, the principal said she knew it was censorship and did not care.
• The third concerns a principal changing quotes while reviewing. Hopefully, we will have more information on this soon.
Of course, some of these don’t involve just review. Review leads to restraint, without consideration of the education implications.
When will it end?
When we agree it has no educational value and convince our various communities to no longer support its use.
Read More