It’s all in the words used
Change can be a good thing.
So can responsibility and appropriateness. Add accountability.
Generally, we would also agree cyberbullying – or just bullying – is not a good thing.
However, control in the guise these terms that dictate speech without common definitions and legal framework is not responsible and not appropriate. It is not acceptable. It is not reasonable, another favorite word of control. It is just not acceptable.
And that’s the problem being played out in California’s Lodi School District as debate rages over an imposed social media policy that could remove students from their extracurricular activities for inappropriate expression.
Of course, inappropriate is not defined.
As Bear Creek High’s newspaper editor said, as reported by the Student Press Law Center, “The district has decided that they are allowed to remove me from my extra-curriculars if they do not approve of my opinions,” Williams’ statement reads. “What vexes me most severely is that this contract is not a threat but an ultimatum: students must choose either their rights or their passions and personality. The district has made some foul errs in the past, but this time, they have gone way too far.”
The SPLC also reports California Senator Leland Yee, who authored legislation protecting student expression, wrote in support of student actions.
“While the problem of cyberbullying must be addressed,” Yee said in the SPLC report, “we must do so in a focused manner.” Yee wrote. “The policy of punishing students for saying anything deemed to be ‘inappropriate’ goes too far in restricting student speech. Policies regarding cyberbullying must be carefully and specifically written.”
Not only should cyberbullying and bullying policies be written precisely, with protecting student expression in mind, so should use of terms like inappropriate, responsible and acceptable.
Part of the solution in Lodi’s situation is what seems to be a board move to involve students in the decision-making process. Enough eyes and minds, from students to board members, from the ACLU and senator Leland Yee, might guarantee the policy is reasonable, appropriate and responsible, all with terms precisely definable and agreeable to all.
That would indeed be meaningful change in the learning process.
See here for more information.
Read More
The time is now
Mary Beth Tinker addresses student and advisers at the Ohio Scholastic Media Association awards banquet April 5. (photo by Melinda Yoho)
Individuals and groups still have one day to help ensure The Tinker Tour: The Power of an Armband happens next fall. The “Tinker Tour” is a bus trip across the country to promote youth voices, free speech and a free press.
The tour’s goal, according to Mary Beth Tinker, tour organizer and plaintiff in the landmark Tinker v DesMoines U. S. Supreme Court decision, is to ” bring real-life civics lessons to schools and communities through my story and those of other young people.”
Every journalism student in the country has a real stake in seeing this tour happen, even to the point of bring it to their schools or home towns.
Tinker and co-organizer Mike Hiestand, who assisted countless media students and advisers as a consulting attorney for the Student Press Law Center, hope to start the tour on Constitution Day next fall and spend three to six months touring, depending on funding.
Pledging your financial support within the next 31 days will enable your funds to be matched by StartSomeGood, a crowdsourcing fundraiser.
Find out about the Tinker Tour here.
To donate to the Tinker Tour, go here.
As Mary Beth says in her appeal for support, “I made a difference with a simple, black armband. Can you imagine what a 13-year-old could do today with all of the extraordinary speech tools available?”
Join her and the others who believe in student expression as a tool for civic engagement in supporting the Tinker Tour.
Read MoreQuill and Scroll joins groups
in opposing high school censorship
by John Bowen
Quill and Scroll’s Board of Trustees became the latest scholastic media group May 24 as it unanimously endorsed the Journalism Education Association and Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication resolution on high school journalism censorship.
Quill and Scroll’s Proposed Resolution reads:
Quill and Scroll International Honorary Society for High School Journalists joins with the Journalism Education Association (JEA) and the Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) in stating that no legitimate pedagogical purpose is served by the censorship of student journalism on the grounds that it reflects unflatteringly on school policies and programs, that it candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues, or that it voices opinions challenging to majority views on matters of public concern. The censorship of such speech, or the punishment of media advisers based on that speech, is detrimental to effective learning and teaching, and it cannot be justified by reference to “pedagogical concerns.”
Be it further resolved that:
Quill and Scroll joins JEA and AEJMC in declaring that the Hazelwood level of control over student journalistic speech is clearly incompatible with the effective teaching of journalistic skills, values and practices, and that institutions of secondary and postsecondary education should renounce reliance on Hazelwood as a source of authority for the governance of student and educator expression.
Quill and Scroll joins the Kettle Moraine Press Association, the Ohio Scholastic Media Association, Kent State University’s Center for Scholastic Journalism and Michigan Interscholastic Press Association in endorsing the statement.
JEA and the Student Press Law Center urge state and regional journalism organizations to join them in making a national statement that nothing educational or legitimate comes from censorship stemming from the 1988 U. S. Supreme Court’s Hazelwood decision.
Read MoreMIPA joins the resolution;
will you be next?
by John Bowen
The Michigan Interscholastic Press Association became the latest state scholastic media group to endorse the Journalism Education Association and Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication resolution on the negative educational impact of the Hazelwood decision.
The MIPA resolution read, in part, “The Michigan Interscholastic Press Association (MIPA) joins with the Journalism Education Association (JEA) and the Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in stating that no legitimate pedagogical purpose is served by the censorship of student journalism on the grounds that it reflects unflatteringly on school policies and programs, that it candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues, or that it voices opinions challenging to majority views on matters of public concern.”
MIPA joins the Kettle Moraine Press Association, the Ohio Scholastic Media Association and Kent State University’s Center for Scholastic Journalism in endorsing the statement to date.
JEA and the Student Press Law Center urge state and regional journalism organizations to join them in making a national statement that nothing educational or legitimate comes from censorship stemming from the 1988 U. S. Supreme Court’s Hazelwood decision.
JEA’s board of directors voted unanimously to endorse a resolution by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication that said, in part, “the Hazelwood level of control over student journalistic speech is clearly incompatible with the effective teaching of journalistic skills, values and practices, and that institutions of secondary and postsecondary education should forswear reliance on Hazelwood as a source of authority for the governance of student and educator expression.”
“This resolution is important for two reasons,” JEA president Mark Newton said. “Anytime we can partner with our college colleagues in AEJMC it shows incredible solidarity. And, most importantly, as the leading scholastic journalism education group, we must stand tall and scream at injustice. Make no mistake, the Hazelwood Supreme Court decision and its subsequent interpretations are an injustice to education, students, advisers and the First Amendment.”
The pendulum simply has swung too far toward heavy-handed school control following 25 years of failed experimentation with the Hazelwood level of censorship authority, SPLC Executive Director Frank LoMonte said.
“Hazelwood has proven itself to be legally unsound, educationally counterproductive, and as a practical matter entirely unnecessary,” LoMonte said, “since schools from California to Massachusetts have functioned just fine for decades without it.”
How you can join the resolutions:
• Study the AEJMC and JEA resolutions attached to this packet
• Ask questions as needed by emailing jabowen@kent.edu
• Prepare a statement showing your organization’s endorsement of JEA’s resolution and publish it
• Notify JEA and the SPRC of your endorsement, and provide us with a copy of the resolution
JEA’s and the Scholastic Press Rights Comission’s goal is simple: We want to have all 50 states make a statement that can be cited by courts as consensus of journalism educators as to what is a legitimate educational reason for censorship – not the random fears Hazelwood generates.
Although JEA has set no deadline for state endorsements, SPRC chair John Bowen urged states to act as quickly as possible.
“The sooner we can point to agreement with these statements,” Bowen said, “the more likelihood we have of making a usable statement for courts and others. Having this in hand before school begins in August would be a real plus.”
Attached materials:
• AEJMC Resolution can be found at http://www.aejmc.org/home/2013/04/resolution-one-2013/
• JEA Resolution attached and available here.
Read More
Support the Tinker Tour
Mary Beth Tinker addresses student and advisers at the Ohio Scholastic Media Association awards banquet April 5. (photo by Melinda Yoho)
Individuals and groups still have 31 days to help ensure The Tinker Tour: The Power of an Armband happens next fall. The “Tinker Tour” is a bus trip across the country to promote youth voices, free speech and a free press.
The tour’s goal, according to Mary Beth Tinker, tour organizer and plaintiff in the landmark Tinker v DesMoines U. S. Supreme Court decision, is to ” bring real-life civics lessons to schools and communities through my story and those of other young people.”
Every journalism student in the country has a real stake in seeing this tour happen, even to the point of bring it to their schools or home towns.
Tinker and co-organizer Mike Hiestand, who assisted countless media students and advisers as a consulting attorney for the Student Press Law Center, hope to start the tour on Constitution Day next fall and spend three to six months touring, depending on funding.
Pledging your financial support within the next 31 days will enable your funds to be matched by StartSomeGood, a crowdsourcing fundraiser.
Find out about the Tinker Tour here.
To donate to the Tinker Tour, go here.
As Mary Beth says in her appeal for support, “I made a difference with a simple, black armband. Can you imagine what a 13-year-old could do today with all of the extraordinary speech tools available?”
Join her and the others who believe in student expression as a tool for civic engagement in supporting the Tinker Tour.
Read MoreResearch project explores news coverage framing of off-campus speech litigation
Trevor Ivan, a graduate assistant in the Center for Scholastic Journalism at Kent State from 2008 to 2012, recently finished his thesis, “A Framing Analysis of News Coverage Related to Litigation Connected to Online Student Speech That Originates Off-Campus.” Below, he discusses the study and its implications for scholastic journalism educators and press rights advocates.
by Trevor Ivan
From my own beginnings as a high school journalist, I’ve always understood that the news media present the public with a window to the world. Without the news, most of the countless interactions, occurrences, triumphs and tragedies that take place each day would remain the experience of but a handful of people.
But it’s always fascinated me to explore how the news media portray specific issues and people. While journalists often preach objectivity and fairness as central tenets of their craft, human nature—as well as time, spatial and resource constraints—influences how they gather and organize information.
Media scholars and sociologists often refer to that selection process as “framing” an issue. Robert Entman described framing in an article in the Journal of Communication as selecting some aspects about a given issue or experience to make them “more salient in a communication text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation.” As a simplification, framing is a way to consider likely interpretations—Are the spending proposals in a budget bill a waste of money or an initiative to improve community life? Are police portrayed as guardians of public order or overzealous tyrants seeking power for its own end?
When I entered grad school, I started exploring framing as it related to political issues, namely how the news media framed both foreign policy and political candidates. However, one day the question struck me about how framing might apply to news coverage of scholastic press rights. The idea mulled around in my head, but I never did much with it until I was looking for a clearer focus for my master’s thesis.
I discovered the doctoral dissertation of Megan Fromm (an SPRC member). Her research examined how the news media framed eight seminal court cases related to high school and college student press freedom. It occurred to me that no one had explored how framing applied to coverage of court cases related to off-campus online speech, a very relevant issue given the rise of online social networking and easily accessible publishing tools.
Considering whether public school administrators, who act as government officials, do or should possess the right to discipline students for speech they create away from school grounds is pertinent to scholastic press advocates because government interference in speech always raises First Amendment concerns. In addition, any such discretion afforded to administrators to control off-campus speech could pave the way for discipline of independent student reporting or whistleblowing that take place off-campus.
Pitted against these free speech concerns is the equally pressing matter of finding effective ways to combat cyber bullying, especially when the speech is directed toward another student. Off-campus activities can profoundly affect the school environment. The online world furthers blurs the line between school and home.
This study was aimed at discovering how the news media discuss school discipline of off-campus speech given the somewhat precarious balance of free speech and personal safety. I paid particular attention to the legal context the stories contained as well as to how they portrayed the actions students and school administrators involved in the case and the online speech itself that precipitated the lawsuit.
I performed a textual analysis of 76 news stories related to four recent federal court cases that involved school discipline of off-campus online speech: Layshock v. Hermitage, J. S. v. Blue Mountain, Doninger v. Niehoff and Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools. The Supreme Court denied hearing all four of the cases between October 2011 and January 2012.
Several significant findings emerged from the analysis: a lack of sufficient legal context, a conflicting frame that classified the student actors in the cases as either aggressors or victims of an overreach of school authority, a frame of strategic battle to describe how both parties in the case related to each other, a use of descriptors and qualifiers in place of specific details of the content of the speech that spurred the lawsuit, a general sense that the speech in the four cases was not worthy of First Amendment protection, and a conflicting frame of school administrators as the guardians of order versus overreacting victims.
You can read the full study at this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/134978665/A-Framing-Analysis-of-News-Coverage-Related-to-Litigation-Connected-to-Online-Student-Speech-That-Originates-Off-Campus
Read More