SPLC addresses JEA’s prior review, restraint definitions
The Student Press Law Center, in its May 4 blog, put JEA’s newly adopted definitions of prior review and prior restraint into legal and educational perspective.
“If a school official insists on reading a student publication ahead of time, they will eventually try to censor it,” SPLC consultant Mike Hiestand wrote. “I would like someone to prove me wrong on this, but I’ve never seen an established system of prior review that has ever remained a pure “reading only” practice.”
In its newly adopted guidelines, JEA created the following definitions:
• Prior review occurs when anyone not on the publication/media staff requires that he or she be allowed to read, view or approve student material before distribution, airing or publication.
• Prior restraint occurs when someone not on the publication/media staff requires pre-distribution changes to or removal of student media content.
“In the real world …” Hiestand wrote, “experienced, trained advisers that work closely with their students, offering suggestions for improvement — often after reading the content ahead of time — can be a valuable and welcome resource, something the JEA recognizes in excluding such ‘advising’ from its definition of prior review. But even advisers, the definitions recognize, can go too far, and ‘when an adviser requires pre-distribution changes over the objections of student editors,’ the definition states, ‘his/her actions then become prior restraint.'”
Check jeasprc.org soon for recommendations on how advisers can assist students without making decisions for them or requiring them to make changes they don’t want to make.
Read MorePrior review and prior restraint
This online lesson guides students through the basics of prior review and prior restraint and the specifics of how it applies to student media. Almost every national journalism education group and professional journalism organization opposes prior review and restraint as having little to no educational value. A position on prior review is an essential part of a staff manual.
Objectives
- Students will demonstrate understanding of prior review and restraint.
- Students will compare and contrast prior review and restraint with journalism principles, ethics and decision-making.
- Students will develop arguments to defend or oppose the use of prior review and restraint
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.2 | Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.6 | Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products, taking advantage of technology’s capacity to link to other information and to display information flexibly and dynamically. |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.10 | Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences. |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.5 | Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience. (Editing for conventions should demonstrate command of Language standards 1-3 up to and including grades 11-12 here.) |
Length
Based on individual needs
Materials / resources
Prior review v. prior restraint
Resources for teacher background
Model guidelines for policy choices
What should go into an editorial policy? What should not?
Student media policy may be the most important decision you make
Suggestions for student media mission, legal, ethical and procedural language
Introducing a staff manual package to build a foundation for journalistic responsibility
Ethics codes are invaluable in student journalism, but not as guide for punishment
How to use this guide for ethical use of staff manuals
Muzzle Hazelwood with strong journalism status as an open public forum
Talking points on prior review and restraint
Dealing with unwanted, forced prior review?
Prior review v. prior restraint
Understanding the perils of prior review and restraint
Prior review imposes ineffective educational limits on learning, citizenship
Guidelines, recommendations for advisers facing prior review
Lesson step-by-step
Presentation – Day 1
The teacher will set up a discussion question for students about prior review and prior restraint.
The prompt follows:
Read these definitions:
- Prior review occurs when anyone not on the publication/media staff requires that he or she be allowed to read, view or approve student material before distribution, airing or publication.
- Prior restraint occurs when someone not on the publication/media staff requires pre-distribution changes to or removal of student media content
Once students ponder the definitions, they should read Prior review v. prior restraint.
The teacher should post the following:
• Create two lists, one supporting prior review and the other opposed to it. Based on readings, previous class work and the definitions, list up to 10 reasons each to oppose or support prior review
When they are satisfied, students would submit their lists to a third, blank, discussion board for use when they work to draft a prior review statement.
Presentation – Day 2 (Could be later or when working on staff manual)
Students will review their pro-con prior review statements and browse through Talking points on prior review and restraint
Using their review choices and other articles, students should each draft a prior review statement to be used with other manual statements on policy, ethics and procedure.
Assessment
Students should craft it as the focus for a short position paper:
• In no more than 150 words, craft a position statement on how to talk with administrators about prior review..
Read MorePrior review imposes ineffective educational limits on learning, citizenship
by John Bowen, MJE
Unbelievably, prior review seems to be spreading.
It occurred recently in Illinois, California, Ohio, Texas and numerous additional states. It shows no signs of slowing, despite efforts to pass state legislation to protect student expression.
To read about California review and restraint demands, go here. To read the articles in question go here.
Every scholastic journalism organization has opposed prior review and, hopefully, will continue to do so.
Legally, though, prior review is not unconstitutional although prior restraint – censorship – is in some states, Thus, the best way to fight it is with educational principles and the need for stronger civic engagement.
Arguable points against prior review include:
• It limits student intellectual and societal growth
• It delays or even extinguishes the development of journalistic responsibility
• It shackles critical thinking
• It leads historically to prior restraint which leads to mis- and disinformation
• It has no educational value
Yet, it still continues and spreads.
As journalism teachers we know our students learn more when they make content choices.
Prior review and restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism or to become more journalistically responsible.
As journalism teachers we know the only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to train them for that responsibility.
As journalism teachers we know democracy depends on students who understand all voices have a right to be heard and have a voice in their school and community.
It is our responsibility to find and publicize ways to convince those who support prior review why the practice has no place in scholastic journalism.
For our democracy, our educational system and our individual abilities to separate credible information untruths.
To gain traction against prior review, JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Committee will focus its efforts to provide educational and civic support for advisers, students, parents and administrators so they can best educate their communities.
The resources below represent our initial steps to extend the discussion about the dangers of a practice that historically only led to censorship.
Resources
Prior review
What to tell your principal about prior review?
Why avoiding prior review is educationally sound
Dealing with unwanted, forced prior review?
Definitions of prior review, prior restraint
Prior review vs prior restraint
Questions advisers should ask those who want to implement prior review
Why we keep harping about prior review
Understanding the perils of prior review and restraint
Talking points blog and talking points to counter prior review
And much, much more at Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Read MorePrior review v. prior restraint: Quick Tip2
In brief, the Journalism Education Association has found prior review has no educational value. Instead, JEA believes it is simply the first step toward censorship and fake news. Prior review also contributes to self-censorship and lack of trust between students, advisers and 
administrators. Prior review conflicts with JEA’s adviser code of ethics.
Prior review occurs when anyone not on the publication/media staff requires that he or she be allowed to read, view or approve student material before distribution, airing or publication.
Prior restraint occurs when someone not on the publication/media staff requires pre-distribution changes to or removal of student media content.
Prior review itself is a form of prior restraint. It inevitably leads the reviewer to censor and student journalists to self-censor in an effort to assure approval.
An officially designated adviser, when working with students and offering suggestions for improvement as part of the coaching and learning process, who reads or views student media before publication is not engaged in prior review.
Possible Guideline: Prior review and restraint
Question: What does prior review mean and how is it different from prior restraint?
Key points/action: In brief, the Journalism Education Association has found prior review has no educational value. Instead, JEA believes it is simply the first step toward censorship and fake news. Prior review also contributes to self-censorship and lack of trust between students, advisers and administrators. Prior review conflicts with JEA’s adviser code of ethics.
Stance: JEA would define prior review and restraint as follows:
• Prior review occurs when anyone not on the publication/media staff requires that he or she be allowed to read, view or approve student material before distribution, airing or publication.
[pullquote]Quick Tips are small tidbits of information designed to address specific legal or ethical concerns advisers and media staffs may have or have raised. These include a possible guideline, stance, rationale and resources for more information. This is the second in the series[/pullquote]
- Prior restraint occurs when someone not on the publication/media staff requires pre-distribution changes to or removal of student media content.
- Prior review itself is a form of prior restraint. It inevitably leads the reviewer to censor and student journalists to self-censor in an effort to assure approval.
- An officially designated adviser, when working with students and offering suggestions for improvement as part of the coaching and learning process, who reads or views student media before publication is not engaged in prior review.
When an adviser requires pre-distribution changes over the objections of student editors, his/her actions then become prior restraint
Reasoning/suggestions: Students learn more when they make all publication choices. Prior review and restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism.
The only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to give them the responsibility to make those decisions freely. No administrator has ever shown any educational value in prior review.
Continued democracy depends on students understanding all voices have a right to be heard and assuring all viewpoints have a say in their communities.
Resources: Questions advisers should ask those who want to implement prior review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Prior Review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
SPRC Talking points blog
SPRC Talking points
Definitions of prior review, prior restraint
Lesson: Understanding the perils of prior review and restraint
Why we keep harping about prior review
Related: These points and other decisions about mission statement, forum status and editorial policy should be part of a Foundations Package that protects journalistically responsible student expression.
Understanding the perils of
prior review and restraint
Title
Understanding the perils of prior review and restraint
Description
This lesson asks the viewers to participate by providing the answers to several questions concerning prior review and restraint. Following each slide, the correct answer is provided as well as a description of the reasoning for the answer.
Objectives
• Students will learn the difference between prior review and restraint.
• Students will understand why prior review and restraint are not beneficial to any involved including students, teachers and administrators.
• Students will have understand the benefits of not having prior review.
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.4 | Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone (e.g., how the language of a court opinion differs from that of a newspaper). |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.8 | Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning. |
Length
40 minutes
Materials / resources
CD2015 Prior Review pdf
Lesson step-by-step
Step 1: partner work — 2-5 minutes
Students should work in pairs to define the terms prior review and prior restraint. Teacher should ask several pairs to report their definitions.
Step 2: slideshow — 25 minutes
Teacher and students should work through the slideshow.
Step 3: debrief — 10-13 minutes
Students should review why prior review and restraint can negatively affect student media.
Differentiation
Teacher could ask students to research how an administrator reviewing content is not like the publisher or editor of media. Students could access resources and report back to the group.
Additional Resources
Prior review button on menu bar, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
JEA Board Statement on Prior Review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Building a Climate of Trust Can Ease Prior Review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Seeking a Cure for the Hazelwood Blues: A call to Action, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Audio: Panic Button, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee, Press Rights Minute
Audio: Eliminating Prior Review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee, Press Rights Minute
Read More