By Jimmy Hibsch, Rolling Meadows High School

For the past year the Stevenson High School Statesman staff has not only been reporting the news, but it has also been making it.

Last January, when former Features Editor Eunice Ro published an article about “hooking up,” administrators responded with harsh criticism. The article discussed the demise of the teenage ‘cookie-cutter’ relationships into casual, and often drunken, affairs. Disregarding an expose about the same topic in the New York Times that deemed hooking up a trend, district administrators claimed the issue was of “no news value” and insisted the missing 3,400 issues that included the article disappeared.

Over the next 11 months, the Stateman’s award-winning and nationally-known adviser Barbara Thill resigned and administration-student relationships withered.

“The administration was offered a chance to look over the package and while one of them did and said it looked good, the other one declined, wanting to wait to see it when the rest of the school did. They told us they trusted us,” former Editor-in-Chief Pam Selman said. “However, when the community had a strong response – both negative and positive – to the package, the administration decided to implement prior review of The Statesman and we have been under prior review since then.”

While District 125 Board of Education President Bruce Lubin said the school “has had an informal practice of pre-publication prior review for the Statesman for years” in his Dec. 19 statement, he also stressed the school was allowed to “impose restrictions” under the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision.

Since the Statesman is not a public forum, the school claims it is an “educational and curriculum endeavor.” However, student journalists such as Selman say limiting the Statesman’s content does just the opposite.

“The practice of prior review does nothing but hinder education and make students feel as if they are incapable of making their own decisions,” Selman said. “It results in a weaker publication and a long list of impacts on education.”

This November, the dispute was furthered when administration censored the Statesman’s Nov. 20 issue, objecting to stories about Code of Conduct breaches by honors students, teenage pregnancies and the rise of shoplifting. Selman said when her staff decided to leave the front page blank in protest, administrators instead forced them to feature alternate stories they had approved.

Had students not consented, they would have failed their journalism class.

“They censored the entire issue, but then turned around the next day and told us we had an hour to put together a paper in the way they wanted us to. We received a packet delineating the exact format of the paper as requested by the administration,” Selman said. “They forced us to put a features story on the front page, and the pregnancy and honors student story were not printed.”

Essentially, the students felt the issue did not reflect their work in the least.

“We asked that an editors’ note be published explaining why the paper was not up to our standards, which was turned down. We also requested that our bylines be removed from the paper, not wanting our names attached to something we felt was not ours,” Selman said. “Again, they refused.”

A school spokesperson said the honors student story was ruled as unprintable because it included anonymous sources who admitted to illegal activity. However, that was not the case the following month when the staff attempted to publish an article about birth control. This time, administrators said that the article revealed personal medical information about a student.

“The school did not want to put medical information about a student into the public. They would not allow us to make her anonymous, so we ended up running a blank page,” Selman said. “When the administration censored the December issue, it was clear that they intended to continue censoring without reason.”

This year (2009-10), the school divided the Statesman production class into two separate sections, despite students pleas the change would drastically impact their production. With the end of the first semester, however, the school had moved the students’ schedules around again to allow for only one class – again forcing the staff to readjust. Seeing these and the school’s prior actions equal to forcing her to practice bad journalism, Selman and several other Statesman staff members quit the newspaper by withdrawing from the class associated with its production.

“Mainly, we refuse to compromise our ethics and standards that we hold so closely,” Selman said. “It is unfair of a school, or anyone for that matter, to ask a student or person to give up what they believe in.”

Currently, only four students remain in the class. The small staff originally intended to publish their Jan. 28 issue on schedule, however, it has been delayed as a result of their lack of numbers. The first issue published Feb. 12.

As for the remainder of the Statesman’s former staff, Selman said the future is uncertain.

“We are currently considering all of our options, but we have gotten a number of offers from companies willing to sponsor Web sites and publications for us completely independent of the school. We will be pursuing one of those options,” Selman said.

Jimmy Hibsch is the Editor-in-Chief of The Pacer at Rolling Meadows High School (IL)

I love that my mom and dad still send me actual clippings from our local newspapers when they think something will appeal to me. I also love that Mom, at age 76,  has now made  the leap to digital media and sends me links as well. The link she sent me Thursday from The Columbia Daily Tribune, a piece by T.J. Greaney, sparked something inside of me and I feel compelled to pass it on.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/feb/11/famed-editor-merits-stamp-of-approval/

It’s about a Missouri journalist, Elijah Lovejoy, who was killed in 1837 defending press freedoms and Mom thought my students “might be interested in knowing about the lengths he went to use his right to free speech.” It seems there is a group trying to get Lovejoy his own postage stamp in honor of the 175 anniversary of his death.

This article inspired me as an adviser who has survived censorship.

1. The importance of standing firm

Lovejoy stood firm in his convictions. He continued to voice his opinions against slavery, although they were unpopular. Unable to stop him with threats of violence, angry mobs tore his printing press apart and threw it into the river. Isn’t that what those in power do to our students when they censor? They think if they throw the press in the river, they can silence the voices. Today’s students are much too savvy for that. Online media makes it easier than ever for students to continue to publish, even if their official publication has been destroyed by censorship.

2. There’s no shame in moving on

Eventually Lovejoy moved his operations to a free state, Illinois. He had endured violence and retribution. When it got too dangerous and he feared for his wife’s well-being, he moved on. As advisers working under stressful conditions we often feel guilty about the decision to move on. We don’t want to give up. The fact remains, sometimes we can help negotiate a happy ending for our students freedoms, and sometimes the angry mob mentality cannot be subdued. There is no shame in moving on. My hope is that advisers who feel they must, can transfer into publication positions in other schools or other states. Even if they cannot, they should know that to resign for personal and familial health and well-being is justified. They should also know their contribution to teaching students about press freedom will not be forgotten.

3. Sometimes the bullies win

Even though he moved to another state, in Lovejoy’s case, the bullies eventually won – at least temporarily. They silenced his voice by force. Sometimes, students and advisers are just too beat up to continue. Sometimes the bullies win but,

4. Time heals and sometimes validates

Even though the angry mobs silenced Lovejoy’s voice with a gun, looking back I’m sure the people of Missouri and Illinois realize he was in the right. Sometimes those unpopular opinions voiced by students bring out true problems in a school. I remember an unpopular opinion my students wrote about race relations at our school when some students showed up at a Halloween dance in blackface. It was controversial. There was discussion about whether it should run or not. My students claimed there was a problem with racism in our school. It ran as both news and opinion with all sides represented. Two years later our school dealt with a media firestorm when racial slurs scribbled on the bathroom wall threatened students of color. Today, our district has a diversity committee which includes members of all schools, law enforcement and community members. I look back and shake my head. My students reported about it, gave and asked for solutions two years before.

The best validation came from a school board member on the fateful day the committee made the decision about our student forum status. “If you really want to know what students think and are concerned about, read their paper,” he said. We retained our student forum status with a unanimous vote.

Maybe it’s because my mother read me To Kill a Mockingbird before I could read it myself or maybe it’s because my father, like Atticus, always had a newspaper within his reach and part of our Sunday tradition was to read together. Maybe it’s because they still live in Missouri where, four years after my high school graduation, the Hazelwood decision slammed a sledgehammer into student press rights, or because I myself endured a censorship issue as an adviser of student media, but I have found myself inextricably tied to the issue of student free speech.

I can’t help thinking about the lesson Scout and Jem learned from their father.

“I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand.  It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.  You rarely win, but sometimes you do.” ~Atticus Finch from Harper Lee’s, To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11

Today I thank Elijah Lovejoy for his courage and his contributions to the free press.

The Feb. 11 posting on CODEWORDS,  the Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Committee blog, calls for “massive public education” about what constitutes “real news” and why such content is necessary for “an effective democracy.”

Author Paul LaRocque points out the “period of change” media are now experiencing will not be over soon. But now is the time all major groups like SPJ, ASNE, APME and RTDNA should launch a campaign to educate the public about NEWS, real news. He says they must “show the public the difference between noise and information.”

Why not add all those other alphabet-soup scholastic media organizations to the list? JEA, NSPA, CSPA plus Quill and Scroll and the Center for Scholastic Journalism? Where better to start educating for understanding and appreciating news than in our schools? How better to do that than with student newspapers, newsmagazines, yearbooks, broadcast outlets and news Web sites that allow students to use their voices and experience democracy before they graduate?

SPJ, we want to sign up for the cause.

Candace Perkins Bowen, MJE

Gerald Posner’s resignation from The Daily Beast offers a good lesson about plagiarism. What happens when a journalist has LOTS and LOTS of notes and a tight deadline? Is it possible to forget which words are someone else’s and which are yours?

More details and links about this appear on “A lesson in ‘accidental plagiarism’” on the Center for Scholastic Journalism blog. It’s a teachable moment for sure.

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

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.

Join the discussion over Twitter and the Five Freedoms Network

On February 8-9, 2010, the McCormick Freedom Project and the Illinois Press Foundation will convene a group of crucial stakeholders from across the state and country with the goal of creating a protocol that will serve as a national model for scholastic journalism. The conference will bring together more than 50 representatives from local and national organizations specializing in the First Amendment, scholastic journalism, and school governance, including students, teachers and principals, who are the first to encounter these often tense situations inherent to scholastic journalism, along with superintendents, school board members, and other affected parties.

Session convener and the above groups invite those in scholastic media to join in the discussion through the Twitter hash tag #studentnewsmedia and through their Ning group on the Five Freedoms Network. We’ll be tweeting and posting some questions this week to get the discussion going and will live tweet periodically from the conference. Some of the discussion posts and tweets may become part of the final conference report.

Building on its code of ethics, RTDNA released online and social media guidelines Feb. 3.

Those with online sites and who use social media might look at RTDNA’s for suggestions and comparison with their practices.

According to Kelley R. Taylor, Esq., in the February issue of Principal Leadership, “Courts recognize that principals are the best judges of what will disrupt their schools, but they still must provide evidence that their decisions are based on fact.” The article discusses the A. M. v. Cash case (October 2009 – U. S. Court of Appeals for the 5th District) where the court did uphold a lower court ruling that the school did not violate student free speech when it prohibited any display of the Confederate flag, which the school named in its policies as an inappropriate symbol.

Taylor warns principals that they cannot just intuit a disruption, but they can  make a ‘reasonable forecast’ only when that ‘certain proscribed speech’ would cause substantial disruption based on clear and substantial information gained from inquiry.   It is interesting to note that the Superior Court used the Tinker standard as reference to support he administrator’s ‘reasonable forecast’ of disruption.

What does this mean to student journalists?  Fortunately, Tinker is a strong standard to protect student expression.  However,  Tinker can be used in stop student expression. Without a doubt, Tinker still establishes the standard for administrators to follow when censoring student expression.  Principals must be able to “reasonably forecast” disruption in school when deciding to censor student publications.  This is a cautionary article admonishing administrators to gather strong evidence through extensive  investigation or from past history within the individual school to claim “reasonable forecast” as a reason for censoring student expression.

Perhaps principals could take a lesson from  student journalists across the country who do extensive research before they actually write their stories and publish them in student publications.