Seattle School District seeks to remove forum policy for prior review
Even though its current open forum policy helped it avoid a lawsuit earlier this year, the Seattle School District seems determined to change course and install prior review, making the adviser responsible for all content and the administrators able to review at will.
A decision earlier this year in the Sisley v Seattle School District case hinged on the school’s stand on recognizing student media as forums for student expression and without prior review. The court, in its ruling, stated, ” As a matter of law, plaintiffs are unable to prove that, consistent with the First Amendment, the [district] should have censored the student’s speech.”
Now, according to a report from NPR station KUOW in Seattle, “The Seattle School Board is considering a rule change that would affect student newspapers. For the first time, the district would let principals review a student paper before it’s published. The district proposes the change, even after it won a lawsuit this summer because its students have freedom of the press.”
According to KUOW, the Seattle district used a freedom of the press argument to win in the Sisley decision in addition to the truth argument of the student article. KUOW reports new standards, part of a system-wide overhaul, would call for prior review and give principals broad powers of control, including determining what is “inappropriate” and what is “disruptive.” The board will decide on the policy change December 7.
Washington Journalism Education Association’s Fern Valentine, who had seen the proposed policy, said in an email it clearly puts the adviser in charge of content supervision and gives administrators prior review. The policy also uses other language like not publishing material “inappropriate for the maturity level of the students” and criticism of school officials that could lead to substantial disruption of the school.
KUOW quoted SPLC consultant Mike Hiestand that such a change would make the district liable for content.
“The minute that you open the door and say that a principal has that authority,” Hiestand told the station, “as a plaintiff’s attorney, you know, I start to salivate.”
Kathy Schrier, Executive Director for the Washington Journalism Education Association, said the potential move sets the stage for censorship of student expression
“WJEA is dismayed to see that this deeply flawed cookie cutter policy is endorsed by the Washington State School Directors Association,” Schrier said, “and worse, that it is being considered for adoption in the Seattle School District. This proposed policy removes responsibility for content from student editors and sets the stage for administrative censorship.”
Schrier also noted Seattle has long had an excellent, clearly worded policy that set a high standard for student accountability with the expectation students would follow the law.
“The new policy, if adopted,” she said, “will create a chilling effect on scholastic journalism in Seattle schools, as has happened in other districts where this policy has been established. WJEA will fight the adoption of Policy 3220 by the Seattle School Board.”
WJEA president Vince DeMiero said the student publication policies under consideration by the Seattle School District are inconsistent with federal and state law, state code and best educational practices.
“They are in stark contrast to the wonderful policy that has served the district, educators and students so well for at least the past 20 years,” DeMiero said. “Policy 3220 continues to be pushed by the Washington State School Directors’ Association even though it is inconsistent with federal and state law, state code and best educational practice.
DeMiero said the policy is inconsistent with WSSDA’s own stated mission to “support public school directors’ efforts to improve student learning.”
“Policy 3220,” he said, “does nothing to improve teaching or learning in Seattle or anywhere else.”
John Hamer, President and Executive Director of Washington News Council, spoke to the value of students making decisions to learn critical thinking.
“Student journalists should have the freedom to express themselves and cover their school communities just as professional and citizen journalists do,” Hamer said of his personal views. “The more responsibility they are given, the more careful and ethical they will be. Many student journalists nationwide have already taken our (Washington News Council) ‘TAO of Journalism’ pledge to be Transparent, Accountable and Open. That’s a far better approach than prior review and administrative censorship.”
JEA has long opposed and condemned prior review as an tool without legitimate educational value, as well as a legally questionable practice. We continue to do so in this and other incidents.
Watch for more information on this situation.
For more information on the situation, go to KUOW radio
For background on events earlier this year and lessons about the decision, including the importance of the Sisley decision, go here.
For additional information on censorship research and fighting prior review, go here and here.
For JEA’s position on prior review and more on questioning it, go here.
Read More
Questions for thought #5 of a series
Here’s another Question for Thought in our series :
• A new administrator joins your school and demands prior review. What will your (students’) responses be? What points can the students raise to stop her from enforcing this new standard?
Read MoreQuestions for thought #3 continuing a series
Here’s a question in our series raising a variety of Questions for Thought. Hopefully, as you consider answers, you and your students will address some important principles of scholastic journalism. Our Constitution Day lessons can now be accessed from the menu bar above, titled Constitution Day 2011.
#3: What would happen if press freedoms would be restrained just once? Take one incident and extend the repercussions into the future. For example, what would happen if the school board refused just once to allow reporting of a controversial issue?
Read MoreGuidelines, recommendations for advisers facing prior review
Based on an increase in the number of of prior review incidents and administrative attacks on advisers, we are reposting this information.
At the spring 2010 Portland JEA/NSPA convention, JEA’s board passed a definition of prior review and prior restraint. The SPLC also recently endorsed the statement.
At the time, the Press Right Commission was directed to design a recommended process and guidelines on how advisers might handle prior review if faced with it. Below you will find those guidelines and process along with links to supporting philosophy and resources. We welcome your input.
While we know advisers will make decisions regarding prior review and other educational issues based on what they believe they can best support philosophically, JEA reiterates its strong rejection of prior review, and hence prior restraint, as a tool in the educational process. With that belief, we feel an obligation to help advisers faced with this situation.
Statements to accompany JEA’s definitions of prior review and restraint:
As journalism teachers, we know our students learn more when they make publication choices and that prior review or restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism.
As journalism teachers, we know the only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to give them the responsibility to make those decisions freely.
As journalism teachers, we know democracy depends on students understanding all voices have a right to be heard and knowing they have a voice in their school and community.
Thus, to help students achieve work that is up to professional standards, journalism educators should consider the following process:
• Encourage transparency about who determines the content of a student publication by alerting readers and viewers when student media are subject to prior review and restraint;
• Advocate the educational benefits of student press freedom if student media are subject to prior review or restraint;
• Provide students with access to sources of professional advice outside the school for issues they need to address;
• Provide students with tools that include adequate knowledge and resources to successfully carry out their work. By using these tools, we build trust in the learning process and the theories on which it is based;
• Encourage students to seek multiple points of view and to explore a variety of credible sources in their reporting and decision-making;
• Coach instead of make requirements or demands thus modeling the value of the learning process and demonstrating the trust we place in our educational system;
• Empower students to know the difference between sound and unsound journalism and how to counsel their peers about potential dangers;
• Model a professional newsroom atmosphere where students share in and take responsibility for their work. In so doing, we increase dialogue and help ensure civic and journalistic responsibility;
• Use peer editing to encourage student interaction, analysis and problem solving;
• Instruct students about civic engagement and journalism’s role in maintaining and protecting our democratic heritage;
• Showcase student media where the dissemination of information is unfiltered by prior review and restraint so the school’s various communities receive accurate, truthful and complete information.
Recommended process if facing prior review, restraint
If, after employing the above techniques, student journalists still object to changes an adviser discusses, the following describes a process to handle potential disagreement:
1. Adviser and students disagree about content for publication.
2. Adviser and students discuss all angles of the disagreement; they try to find common ground.
3. The adviser and students decide if the disagreement is based on an ethical issue or a legal one.
4. If violations of libel, obscenity, unwarranted invasion of privacy, copyright infringement or material disruption of the school process are likely at stake, the adviser urges students to get advice of the Student Press Law Center or reliable legal resource. Not just any school lawyer or administrator will do. The resource, which could include non-live information, must be reputable for scholastic media. The phrase “unprotected speech” might not be enough because Hazelwood so muddied the concept.
5. If the disagreement is not over a legal consideration, the adviser urges students to consider the “red light” or similar questions raised by The Poynter Institute to see how various stakeholders might react if the material is published. Students see and consider the possible outcomes of publication and discuss with the adviser ramifications of their actions.
6. Adviser and students continue to discuss and explore alternative approaches until they reach a point of no possible agreement.
7. This process fulfills the adviser’s commitment to advise, not to make or require decisions, and to be cognizant of his/her responsibilities to school and students.
The Journalism Education Association reiterates its position that prior review and prior restraint violate its Adviser Code of Ethics and educational philosophy.
Additional links and resources:
• 10 Tips for Covering Controversial Subjects from the press rights commission website
• Just this once
• JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics from the commission blog. Scroll to the bottom
• Questions to ask those who would prior review
• JEA’s statement on prior review from the JEA website
• Results of a Master’s study on prior review and publication awards from the commission’s website
• Resources from the press rights commission on developing professional standards from press rights website
• NSPA Model Code of Ethics for student journalists from NSPA’s website
Read More
Overland situation settled – for now – although questions remain
According to both the Denver Post and the Student Press Law Center, the Overland Scout will retain its adviser and lose prior review – for the remainder of this year’s issues.
Unsettled, however, is what happens next year, both to the Scout and to the adviser.
“School and district officials maintain that the situation was a misunderstanding and that the newspaper was never shut down,” the Post reported April 4. “Cherry Creek School District spokeswoman Tustin Amole said that Lundie (the school’s principal) was unaware of a separate printing fund the district provides for printing newspapers and thought that they did not have the budget for further issues.”
SPLC attorney advocate Adam Goldstein said the problems have not been resolved, but that it was a good first step.
“Firing the adviser in May for what the students wrote isn’t more permissible than it is in March,” he said. “We still need assurances that this program will still exist as vibrant as it ever has.”
Unanswered questions remain:
• The school reportedly wants to move the existing publication online, although it now will not permit online student media to use last names. That policy would have to be changed, and it is not known how an online publication would fit into existing student media policies.
• With such a move, will the district retain the adviser or seek someone else?
• Will the district attempt to reinstate prior review?
• Will the idea of moving from print to online journalism affect other schools in the district?
• Will the principal’s idea for change alter existing concepts of journalism the district teaches and students practice at other schools?
For the latest information, please check out these sources:
• Overland High School official statement from the principal and official policy statement
• Overland High School relents
• Overland principal: student newspaper to continue publishing
Read More