Recognizing student media as public forums
The SPRC and the Center for Scholastic Journalism at Kent State University are recreating an interactive map to showcase schools where student press freedom and editorial independence are protected. We want your school on our map!
Public forums can exist by policy, practice or both.To be eligible, complete the form by downloading the rewritable PDF, saving it with your school’s name and then emailing it to John Bowen at jabowen@kent.edu.
Please note we need a copy of any official school board policy and/or publication policy attached to or linked in that email.
To help you understand what we consider public forums, please note these definitions:
- Forums by policy: An official school policy exists that designates student editors as the ultimate authority regarding content. School officials actually practice this policy by exercising a “hands-off” role and empowering student editors to lead. Advisers teach and offer students advice, but they neither control nor make final decisions regarding content.
- Forums by practice: A school policy may or may not exist regarding student media, but administrators have a “hands-off” approach and have empowered students to control content decisions. Advisers teach and offer students advice, but they neither control nor make final decisions regarding content.
We appreciate your help in building a database and map that will show where public forum schools exist across the nation.
We feel public forum student media are more common than people may think and want to establish that fact publicly.
Read MoreStudent promotes need for sex education
Kylee Sharp, a junior at John Muir High School in Pasadena, Calif., was more than disgusted that her school had not sex education program for the students. She decided to use her skills as a student journalist to change that to make sure the students at her high school received the best sex education possible.
Adviser of The Blaze, the high school’s newspaper, Jose Ortega, shared Sharp’s mission.
“Kylee Sharp, an opinion writer, condemned the absence of any sex education at John Muir High School. As a result, the Administration and the Science Department are making concrete plans to deliver sex education to Muir’s students, beginning in the next school year. Her thoroughness in discussing this issue led many to realize that Muir is not even doing the bare minimum to educate its students about a very real part of their lives: sex and its physical and emotional repercussions. But because of Kylee, the Muir community stands to benefit from being educated on this still very taboo subject.”
The following is Sharp’s piece that appeared in the May 28, 2015, edition.
“Recently, the administration acknowledged the lack of HIV/AIDS prevention education in biology classes. A couple of years ago, the freshman class took physics for the science requirement instead of biology. The following year new to our school biology teachers were hired. There was a lot miscommunication between the administration and teachers about what was required to be taught.
At this point in young adolescent lives, most teenagers are very aware of what sex is, but many are not aware of safe sex. But what do these students actually know about sex? Or consent? And where are they getting their information? Not in missing sex ed classes, that’s for certain.
Today, sex is referenced everywhere in the media, from music to movies and books to billboards. Sex, or at least the mention of it, is everywhere, especially at school, and it would be pretty impossible to try to shield young adults from it.
Refusing, by not providing proper sexual education classes, to acknowledge that students know about sex only adds to the issue.
Students have a right to know and be informed on what sex is, what the consequences are, and what they can do to avoid sexual diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
A few weeks ago there was an assembly held right before prom to inform seniors of the difference between consent and rape, and this was the closest we have come to sex ed.
Teen pregnancies have decreased over the past few years, however adolescents are at an increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases (according to the Center for Disease Control Statistics from 2013). So I think it’s pretty important that we have proper sex ed, to increase awareness and inform teens of STDs and unexpected pregnancies.
I know that people will argue that freshmen may be too young to understand sex, but tell that to the high school girls that are pregnant and the boys that impregnated them. Most of us know what sex is and how it works, but we don’t know the repercussions of our actions, especially if we aren’t making safe decisions, or practicing safe sex.
Sexual education, if we were to have it, should be a safe and serious class where teenagers can become better informed. Apparently, schools are not required to teach sex education, according to the California Education Code (CEC) Section 51931 (b), but if they do, they have to follow specific guidelines that conform to the Comprehensive Sexual Health Act.
The guidelines state that if the schools teach sex ed, they must teach that abstinence is the safest way to not have sex and most guaranteed way to not get pregnant, even though they are not limited to just that. Schools are also required to cover teaching about contraceptives, according to the CEC guidelines. What is taught has to be appropriate for the age group.
When I say that we need sex ed, I mean everything from reproduction and anatomy, to healthy relationships, to pregnancy and safe contraceptives. Information on different sexual and gender identities, to inform students who may be struggling. The most important aspect of the class, to me, is to provide students with a safe, confidential space to ask questions and get the accurate information they need to be informed and make informed decisions.
Every sex ed lesson I ever had in middle school taught that abstinence was the only sure way to not get pregnant, and if I did have sex and get pregnant, that’s too bad. But of course the CEC also states that they prohibit abstinence only education, so where is the proper education?
Even though schools are not required to teach comprehensive sexual health, they are required to teach HIV/AIDS prevention education at least once in junior high and once again in high school.
To this day, I have had one class on HIV/AIDS prevention. In seventh grade. I have not had anything regarding HIV/AIDS prevention in any class here at Muir.
HIV/AIDS prevention is supposed to be taught in biology after it is already taught in middle school. However, a new curriculum, Next Generation Science Standards, was recently implemented by the school board which does not cover human anatomy or the reproductive
system.
This is really unfair for current students who haven’t received anything on HIV/AIDS.
HIV/AIDS may be covered during the genetic diseases unit if a student researches that topic for their project, but HIV/AIDS preventions and the reproductions system are not specifically covered, just sexual and asexual reproduction at a cellular level according to Biology teacher Alexandra Gonzales.
Gonzales said, “I think it’s important to educate students about ways they can protect themselves from contracting venereal diseases. I think all students would benefit from taking a year of Health.”
At this point it’s pretty evident that I believe we need an actual class for sex ed, and not a unit in biology.
However Principal Timothy Sippel said, “Sex ed should be covered in middle school. [If we were to have it here] I think three to four or five lessons would probably be adequate. Maybe less, maybe more. I don’t think that the entire semester would be required.”
Honestly, I don’t agree. I feel like it would take a few lessons to cover STDs or how to identify unstable relationships. I certainly do not agree that the lessons that are apparently taught in middle school are enough. I don’t think that a few lessons are enough to cover everything that has to do with sex.
The fact that adults are hesitant to say the word “sex” around minors further perpetuates the idea that the very natural act of sex is taboo. This is so harmful to our impressionable minds. Adults doing this creates a stigma around sex and compels us to believe that sex is bad and wrong, and if we are having it then we are bad and wrong. Therefore, we cannot talk about it.
It seems to be a popular consensus that sex education should not be the school’s responsibility, especially not in high school. Even after all the information I gathered for this article, I still stand
with my original statement that sex ed should be taught in high school.
There is the ongoing debate everywhere over who is responsible to educate young adults on sex, but in the midst of all this debate, students are not being educated by anyone.
I believe that it should be both the high school and the parent or guardian’s responsibility to inform and educate teenagers on the issues and topic of sex.
School Nurse Mercedese Hervey said, “It probably is important to go over [sex ed] because I’m sure some young people have forgotten it, but the sad thing about it is that we no longer have a health class.”
In the nurse’s office there are a few pamphlets with information about STDs and HIV, but most of them in Spanish. STDs are important to know about considering the highest rates of STDs in the city of Pasadena are in teens 15-19 and young adults.
I have heard adults (not at school) say that providing students with condoms will encourage them to have sex. There are studies that prove this to be false. Also, it doesn’t make sense, I think that providing students with condoms would encourage students to have safe, protected sex, if they were to have it, and it would encourage them to make healthy decisions.
Our school does not provide condoms for students because the school lacks the resources to accommodate the guidelines that follow the distribution of condoms.
However, the decision to distribute condoms ultimately originates from the school board, not necessarily the school.
The school board recently voted to reinstate the health class requirement, which will begin with next year’s freshmen. This class requirement is very likely to include sex education. I think that this is really great and a huge step towards changing the lack of sex ed. Even if it won’t benefit the current students, it’s really significant for these incoming freshmen.
All in all, I think that it is completely necessary to have sex ed at school, since we don’t really have it. I truly believe that us teens require a sex education class, even if it’s just a refresher from middle school. We need it, we want it, so where is it?”
Read MoreNo one lives in a Hazelwood state
by Candace Perkins Bowen, MJE
The first time a journalism teacher in a convention session asked for advice because she lived “in a Hazelwood state,” I know I frowned. What? You may be in a state that doesn’t protect student speech, but how would that make you a Hazelwood state?
The important news is — it doesn’t.
In 1969 when Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District said students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, this meant all students — it was a protection.
But Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) didn’t overturn Tinker. And it didn’t say schools HAD to censor or prior review. In fact, eventually we have found some pretty big loopholes. For one thing, your state CAN pass legislation that protects student speech, as North Dakota did in April 2015 to join the other nine states that have laws (and two that have education codes). This new surge of interest in legislation has emerged in more than 21 states, with many adopting the New Voices name.
[pullquote]The more we can do to discourage school officials from seeing Hazelwood-supported censorship as an obligation but instead perceiving it as an embarrassment, the better off scholastic journalism will be. Avoiding the ‘Hazelwood state’ moniker is one way to do that…Mark Goodman[/pullquote]
But even if your state doesn’t offer such protection, you have options. For one thing, you can operate as an open forum for student expression, either by your board policy or by your own practice of having students make content decisions and avoid prior review.
As former SPLC director Mark Goodman, now Knight Chair in Scholastic Journalism and professor at Kent State, said, “It goes back to the fact that Hazelwood never requires censorship by school officials. Too many people misread or misinterpret Hazelwood as being a directive as opposed to a permission.”
He pointed out that even in these so-called “Hazelwood states” many student journalists have strong First Amendment protection as a result of their school’s policy or practice of designating them as a public forum.
“The more we can do to discourage school officials from seeing Hazelwood-supported censorship as an obligation but instead perceiving it as an embarrassment, the better off scholastic journalism will be. Avoiding the ‘Hazelwood state’ moniker is one way to do that,” Goodman said.
Read More
Changing not so great expectations
by John Bowen
People shouldn’t be surprised at what happened at University of Missouri recently involving student media trying to do their jobs and groups disagreeing with what their role is.
After all, they have seen it in their secondary schools since at least 1988.
They have only to look at the impact of various Supreme Court decisions starting with Hazelwood as a contributing cause of the problem.
Hazelwood and other decisions gave schools the ability to control student expression, to limit what questions were asked, what stories were told and whether they were told thoroughly. It is possible this contributes to access issues, too.
In some cases, students, teachers, administrators and community members have known nothing but a limited, controlled and incomplete student media. Perhaps an expectation of thorough and accurate reporting starting in high school could help improve the access issue.
If these groups do not support and advocate for free expression and journalistically responsible student media, they set the stage for later misunderstanding of media roles and obligations in a democracy.
Like actions at the University of Missouri.
It should not be surprising then that both a mass communication faculty member and a university administrator sought to control the media’s role and access during an incident when protesters wanted to bar media from a public event.
They may have known no better because of what many high school environments allow to become the expected role of journalism: lapdogs that do not challenge authority, do not seek a complete story and do not carry out their role in a democratic society.
[pullquote]They may have known no better because of what many high school environments allow to become the expected role of journalism: lapdogs that do not challenge authority, do not seek a complete story and do not carry out their role in a democratic society.[/pullquote]
We all can learn from the events at the University of Missouri. It could happen again, elsewhere, if we don’t.
We can:
• As teachers, ensure our students have access to information and principles that show the importance of free expression in student media.
• As teachers and students, apply the principles of the First Amendment to student media, in policy and practice.
• As teachers, students, administrators and community members, we can demand our states pass legislation that would guarantee student free expression, like North Dakota that just passed New Voices Act and 20-some states looking at similar legislation.
• As citizens in a democracy, we can inform ourselves about the role of media in a democracy and empower students to fulfill it in socially responsible ways.
We can, and should, in part because of the misinformed reaction to student media at the University of Missouri, act as the Student Press Law Center and the Journalism Education Association both agree: Cure Hazelwood.
Read More
Don’t drink the water
Making a difference…part of a series
When the water in the fountains and spigots at Rockville High School (Md.) ran rusty, Rampage contributing editor Xavier Rivera knew something had to be done. The three-part investigative report Rivera wrote caught the attention of a state senator and brought the issue to the forefront motivating administration to seek a remedy to reduce the levels of lead in the water to acceptable EPA levels.
Rampage adviser, Jessica Nassau explained that the “story began during a Rampage staff brainstorming session, when students mentioned that the water coming from the fountains tasted “funny.” Editor Xavier Rivera decided that it was a story worth exploring, kicking off a three-story investigative series. He sent water samples to a lab and the results showed lead levels that surpassed the EPA limits.
He interviewed professionals and district officials to get the full story, and the online edition came to the attention of Senator Karen Montgomery, who wrote a letter to the school board. It was clear that this was a safety issue that could not be ignored.
Due to the story, the school began the EPA recommended water-flushing protocol, which brought the lead presence down to what is considered a safe level. The articles really got the attention of students and staff at our school, and we definitely heard from many of them that they wouldn’t drink the water until the problem was fixed.
That the district ultimately had to take action based on a student publication was tremendously empowering for the whole staff of the Rampage, who came to see that journalists really do make a difference. Though the article was primarily Xavier’s, I would like to mention that he had tremendously supportive editors-in-chief who helped him. This was a story that was bigger than one person, and it was wonderful to see the staff come together to make it the best it could be.”
Read the stories at the links provided.
Administration Responds to Water Quality
Flushing Protocol Meklit Bekele– The Rampage Fixes Water Quality
Read More