Become involved with 1 For All
During this past week, and especially today, commercial media have carried viewpoints by and about 1 For All.
1 For All is is a national nonpartisan program designed to build understanding and support for First Amendment freedoms, providing teaching materials to the nation’s schools and supports educational events on America’s campuses.
As you celebrate July 4 and all it means, consider becoming involved with 1 For All by joining its mailing lists, entering its contests and involving your students in its activities.
Check out its website and participate in the activities. As part of your students’ leadership training, urge them to become involved, to enter a contest or to participate in the 10 top ways to support the First Amendment.
At a time when we, as journalism educators and practioners of the First Amendment – and not just freedom of speech and press – face growing confrontations toward free student expression, becoming involved with 1 For All is a clear way for us to demonstrate our commitment to our country’s promise – and its future.
And, for our efforts to have any meaning at all, we must involve those voices in the village not heard nearly enough: our students.
Read More1 For All
From H.L.Hall:
Most of you probably are already aware that in two days 1,100 news outlets across the country will participate in an educational campaign about the First Amendment called “1 For All.” If you haven’t heard about it, this posting will serve as an announcement. It’s too bad this campaign is starting in the summer months when most schools are no longer in session. I would hope, however, that when school starts you will continue the campaign in your classrooms, a campaign that several of you have been carrying on for years.
According to the Nashville Tennessean, participants in the “1 For All” campaign include Yahoo, Google, YouTube, Ellen Degeneres, John Mellencamp, LL Cool J and others. They will all be explaining how the First Amendment affects everyday lives.
Ken Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center and the Newseum is the founder of “1 For All.”
“The truth is,” Paulson told the Tennessean, our schools don’t do a very good job of teaching the First Amendment. There are generations of Americans who don’t really have a good handle of what it says.”
Paulson’s comments should not be a surprise to any journalism teacher. JEA’s Student Press Rights Commission has been working for some time on ways to get students and advisers to learn the 42 words we all should value.
A 2008 First Amendment Center survey showed 40% of the respondents could not name even one freedom stated in the First Amendment. A majority knew about freedom of the press, but fewer than 20% could list freedom of the press, freedom of religion or the right to assemble. Even fewer knew about the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In a column in the Tennessean, Paulson said “1 For All” was the collaborative effort of educators, artists, journalists, lawyers, and librarians as well as others who believe the “American public would benefit from a greater understanding of the First Amendment and the need to protect all voices, views and faiths.
The campaign will feature ads that celebrate freedom in America and ways we exercise freedoms daily.
Paulson said in his column the “1 For All” campaign is non-partisan. “It’s all about education,” he said. He indicated “1 for All” will provide educational materials, course content and study guides for teachers in grades 1-12. He also said “1 For All” will be interactive.
“Students and others,” he said, “will be encouraged to submit photos, videos, songs and stories that reflect the value of freedom in America.”
The focus, Paulson said, would be on all five freedoms.
For more information go to www.1forall.us.
Read MoreNotable journalism issues as we prepare for summer
As we get ready for summer vacation, several First Amendment issues are worth noting.
The 14-judge Third Circuit U.S. Appeals Court heard a replay of two decisions about the extent of schools’ ability to punish students for speech outside schools.
The First Amendment Coalition posted coverage of the hearing.
In Texas a journalism teacher resigned after administrators censored an editorial on legalization of marijuana, citing Supreme Court rulings allowing censorship. Evidently, administrators did not completely read the Morse v. Frederick decision, particularly the Alito statements about political speech.
In a related First Amendment story, a South Dakota court ruled Hazelwood could be used to justify imposing uniform cap-and-gown dress at graduation.
And, in non-scholastic coverage, a Republican lawmaker introduced legislation to license journalists.
Read MoreWe must boldly move out of ‘reptilian’ mode
In my studies at the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication back in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, I remember reading a fascinating article by the respected psychologist Daniel Goleman in which he identified a dramatic shift in communication – and he related it specifically to the news media.
Goleman argued that in order to survive, humans access information that they want to know as well as what they need to know. Funny thing is, Goleman explained that in the news media, these two distinct types of messages aren’t what you might think. Common sense would tell us that we humans would need to know information about impending disasters or catastrophes, and then want to know information about health care reform and economic policies. But, Goleman says, that’s not how it works. Instead, the way information is packaged and delivered to us, we desperately want and feel like we need to hear about car wrecks and oil spills, but we aren’t very interested in consuming information about the latest jobs bill or global environment change. That’s pretty counterintuitive, isn’t it?
Goleman says the reason is in what he calls the “Reptilian Brain” – you know, the flight or fight center left over from early humans. This is the part of the brain that acts almost entirely on emotion. Recent research suggests that our brains can process this type of information and react to it even before we can intellectualize it in any way. This is very useful if you’re trying to avoid touching a hot stove, but kind of annoying when you find out that a traffic jam is caused by rubber-neckers and not an actual accident.
To complicate matters, Goleman says the reason why our broadcasts, websites and newspapers are filled with so much “Reptilian News” is because we simply cannot help ourselves – we feel as though we have to watch it or listen to it or read it. In other words, we want to be assured that bad things are happening to somebody else, and not to us. After all, if we’re reading about it or watching it on TV, then it’s happening someplace else to someone else. Ah, the “Reptilian Brain” at its finest.
The problem is that this “Reptilian Brain” is taking a devastating toll on decision making in our public institutions – particularly in public schools when it comes to First Amendment issues. In nearly every case of a First Amendment crisis at an American high school in the past several years, I can almost universally point to the situation being made worse because somebody reacted with his or her “Reptilian Brain” instead of responding intellectually.
Therefore, I propose that we journalism educators do all we can to help school administrators, school board members, parents and legislators move from reaction mode into response mode.
Here’s an example of what I mean.
In the fall of 2008, The Puyallup (Wash.) School District enacted its version of the atrocious NEOLA policy and regulation known as “3220/3220R” largely in reaction to pressure following the publication of articles on oral sex by the Emerald Ridge High School’s JagWire. But, just last month, courageous student editors from the district’s three high schools are now asking the PSD, the school board and their legal advisers to respond to the reality of the situation.
I believe the distinction between a reaction and a response is important to make. Let’s agree that accepted definitions of these terms would be:
- Reaction: A physical or emotional reply to a situation or event; consistent with the “fight or flight” foundations in Goleman’s “Reptilian Brain.”
- Response: A verbal or written answer; a more highly evolved and intellectual reply.
The American writer and philosopher Orison Swett Marden once said: “Most of our obstacles would melt away if, instead of cowering before them, we should make up our minds to walk boldly through them.” If I have learned anything in my adult life it’s that making critical decisions in reaction to something often solves an immediate problem (this is the reptilian brain serving its purpose), but that decisions made in response to something usually result in effective long-term solutions (this is our intellectual brain at its best).
Clearly, if public institutions and school officials react to every apparent and/or potential threat, those institutions and those officials soon lose all integrity and credibility. Just think about what 3220/3220R does: It reacts to the threat of a lawsuit by enacting policies that are in direct opposition to the very charter and mission of a public secondary school.
On the other hand, institutions and school officials who effectively respond to real and perceived threats engender confidence and trust. And that’s precisely what a new student expression policy could do for everyone in the Puyallup School District – thoughtfully protect the rights and responsibilities of all students and educators, while also protecting the long-term interests of the school district.
Now that’s a win-win-win situation I think all parties can support. Let’s support what’s going on in Puyallup and urge other courageous students, administrators and community members to respond in a similar fashion.
Read MoreIt takes a village…and constant vigilance
Television station KOMO recently reported the May 24 Puyallup, Washington, school board meeting where student journalists are trying to reverse the board’s prior review policies.
Like the other links posted here in the last couple of days, this one can add to the First Amendment discussion, not only about the issues reported but about the comments and the perspectives that drive them. The comments deserve special attention.
If we are to really develop a community of support for First Amendment issues in education we have to create a climate more accepting of the importance of free and responsible expression. That climate does not stop at the end of the school year and magically begin again in the fall.
On another point, the reporter here missed a good chance for a question the village ought to think about: if Don Austin, the school’s attorney, really thinks legislation might be a solution to a theoretical liability issue, why has he spoken publicly against past efforts at state legislation protecting student expression – and hence schools?
Read More