Join a team that opposes censorship
Looking for something constructive to do that concerns education, scholastic journalism and maybe even the future of democracy?
Join a team that opposes censorship.
Students and parents who want to stop censorship of student media started team McCandless because adviser Cathy McCandless has said she will not advise student media next year given the prior review and censorship generated over several years.
The site urges everyone to “join us if you want to show your support. Censorship teaches nothing.”
We agree, and urge everyone who cares about scholastic journalism, about opposing censorship, to join.
Lori Carballo, who set up the Facebook page, writes there, “We cannot let our opinions be heard only on Facebook. Take the time to let your voices be heard by the Wentzville School District. Contact the school board, the building administrators, the superintendents and tell them what’s on your mind.”
It might just be the first step to ignite constructive change in a series of bad administrative decisions.
Read MoreDespite prior review approval, paper is confiscated anyway
Censorship unleased its tentacles into northern Indiana recently, when assistant principals confiscated issues already reviewed and approved by the principal.
The article, an opinion piece about the resignation of the head football coach, wished “only the best for the coach” but also said the change was needed.
The local paper reported the assistant superintendent as saying the newspapers were removed after students and administrators were called and texted by those upset with the paper’s portrayal of the football team and the coach. Administrators said the piece created a disruption of the school process, even though the editor pointed out the issue was only on the newsstands for about 20 minutes.
The school carries out prior review and the principal had approved the article.
At a board of education meeting Feb. 15, sources said administrators defended their decision by arguing the school paper is no place for negativity and students can become good journalists while covering the plentiful good things in the school.
Coverage of the board meeting reports the students asked the board to make the issue available “no later than Tuesday, Feb. 16. The board did not respond to this request and that of the editor’s father.
The local paper quoted an assistant principal, “I take the rights of our country very seriously. But it’s important for students and staff to show respect for each other, and that we maintain a safe and balanced learning environment.”
Read MoreStopping prior review one fight at a time
Marie Miller, publications adviser in Fauquier County, Virginia, posted this to the JEA listserv today. With censorship and prior review constantly in the news, we thought her points should be repeated to show prior review can be prevented short of court battles.
Information about Miller’s situation can be found on the SPLC site and earlier reporting here.
The post
In these days when so many disputes involve censorship and restriction of student media, I wanted to share some good news about working with administrators to develop a workable publications policy that allows student publications to continue to practice sound journalism.
As background, last summer the Fauquier Co School Board adopted a very restrictive publications policy that decreed that student publications were not forums for student expression and that the principal was the editor in chief of all publications with students serving as assistants. This policy was promulgated by the Virginia Association of School Boards (VASB), a group that develops policy positions for a wide variety of issues. Apparently, a nearly identical policy has been adopted in surrounding jurisdictions (Fredricksburg and Culpeper). I learned about the policy in mid Sept. from another adviser who questioned whether she could allow her students to publish opinion pieces and editorials under it.
As the policy appeared to require prior review and we were about a week from publishing, my first step was to ask my principal when he planned to review the issue and to notify him that I would finish the year as adviser, but that I would not continue after that. My principal has always supported student press rights, has had faith in my ability to advise the paper, and has never wanted to exercise prior review. He forwarded my concerns to the superintendent’s office and what ensued was an intense series of emails, meetings, and negotiations.
Ultimately, the School Board adopted a revised publications policy on Dec. 14 designating student publications as limited forums for student expression subject to restraints on speech under the Tinker standard. Student leadership of the publications was restored and an appeals process was put in place under which students can challenge censorship by either a principal or an adviser. There are still some areas to be addressed (namely, the implication in the policy that ethical guidelines could be a basis for censoring student speech), but our newspaper continues to operate much as it always has — as a public forum.
Things that helped:
• From the start, Frank LoMonte of the SPLC was proactive and extremely helpful with advice and guidance both to me and my editor in chief. I cannot say enough good things about him and the SPLC.
• The JEA listserv provided invaluable background and support. Because of the list, I knew how student publications should operate and what progressive policies looked like. (I have also been teaching the fundamentals of student press law for the past six years, although I did not expect to have to draw on that background in this way)
•The support of my principal and the open-mindedness of the superintendent. We would not have gotten far without both. My principal was put in the middle of a conflict he didn’t want, but he supported the independence of the student newspaper. The superintendent was truly concerned with what was good for the students. He was impressed with the idea that prior review would lead to self-censorship even under the best of circumstances. He also voluntarily read the Principal’s Guide to Scholastic Journalism published by Quill & Scroll. He was not concerned, however, that the county was assuming additional financial liability under the new policy, and this issue was a non-starter.
• The policy was not adopted in response to any recent controversy. The county simply did not have a policy and adopted the one recommended by professional organization.
• We are geographically close to Fairfax, that bastion of progressive education and top-notch publications. The revised policy is modeled on the Fairfax policy.
• The negotiations never got ugly. Everyone maintained a reasoned and reasonable approach, although the students were angry. The students started a petition and quickly gained over 200 signatures. They also formed a Facebook group. We wrote an article and published two editorials about the policy, and the local newspaper published an editorial about the low-key, silent way in which the initial policy was enacted. The SPLC contacted administrators who were reluctant to comment. Moderate pressure is probably a good thing, but it also could have hardened positions.
• Our paper has a good reputation in the community and has done fairly well in state and national evaluations, which makes administrators proud. One of our former editors, Caleb Fleming, was selected as the national collegiate reporter of the year this past fall. The program was developed under Peg Culley who was the adviser for 26 years and entrusted to me for the past six. Reputation and continuity of advisers were big pluses.
• Students are at a real disadvantage in these battles. Too often advisers are concerned for their own positions to challenge the decisions of the administration.
• Awards/recognition from outside groups are important. Groups like CSPA should continue to recognize good journalism from student publications that are not subject to prior review. Also, it would have been very helpful if the Virginia High School League (VHSL) had a policy discouraging prior review.
Miller indicated anyone wishing additional information could contact her at millermarie0227@GMAIL.COM
Read MoreEstablishing protocol terminology
How do you handle disagreement with administrators, especially if prior review or restraint are involved?
One way might be to establish a protocol, a process of discussing the situation with all stakeholders.
An early step in developing that a meaningful processw is to agree on definitions. We think the following terms need to be defined, and hopefully agreed on:
• Responsibility. This would include responsibility for students, for advisers and for administrators. It most definitely must include journalistic responsibility.
• Journalism. Although this seems to be obvious, a common understanding of the process could address early demands for prior review. For example, is the process that follow prior review journalism? Is it public relations? Is it something else, and would defining terms before there are issues make a difference?
• Prior review. Maybe this needs definition just to find out what it is not. At any rate, what all parties think is review and what is not should be quite clear to all.
• Forum for student expression. Under which forum do your students operate? Are all stakeholders aware of the types and the differences? Do they agree?
So, if you would, help us get a better picture of how you, as advisers, and your students, and even your administrators, define those terms. Post your comments here for others to see and share.
If can establish common ground, then perhaps we can move toward a workable protocol to avoid censorship.
Read MoreCarrying on the fight: how to begin
Friends of the Spoke is an amazing resource.
The students launched it as an informational site about the proposed policy changes. They interviewed and posted that information. They sought community letters to the board in support of the Spoke.
And others can use it, as well as some of the tactics mentioned earlier to model their own approaches.
Go there and you will find:
• Information about student and publication awards.
• History of proposed changes to Spoke policies and links to coverage.
• Special reports containing sensitive and important stories students felt caused the drive to change policies.
• Contact and background information for the Spoke and student journalists.
There is also a link to an updated Spoke site, a blog, where students wrote the site was re-designed to recognize their new role. “After the district changed its proposal that would have led to censorship of the Spoke, the organization is now focused on defend the The Spoke by keeping the community informed of the latest news at the papers, and making our resources available to student journalists nationwide who are facing censorship.”
Even after winning the fight, the students continue their vigilance.
For those facing censoring, the decision to fight might not be an easy one. But it has to do done.
It has been done before – and succeeded.
As has been said, the price of liberty calls for eternal vigilance. There is no lesser way.
As Henry Rome said, the fight is long and the future is important.
Read More