The Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association joined with the Student Press Law Center in a case about a New York school censoring a cartoon.

“If the court tells the students of Ithaca High School that they had no legally protected right to satirize the ineffectiveness of a school policy – the effectiveness of which the school itself is telling this Court is a matter of life and death – then the ‘chill’ of intimidation that student journalists already feel when they bravely take up a critical pen against their elders will turn into a deep freeze,” the brief states, according to a SPLC News Flash.

Read the News Flash for more information.

These words from an Animals song – slightly changed to the plural – leave a message those facing censorship issues should think about over the summer.

Don’t give up; don’t be misunderstood.

Blatant censorship or its muted shape of prior review is still censorship.

And it has no place in the education business.

It can be fought. You can fight it and win. All of us – students, teachers, parents and administrators – can learn from those who continue to fight:

• Letters from the ACLU and the SPLC has a Michigan district rethinking a planned move to prior review
• A Pennsylvania group of students fought planned policy changes and won. In the process they developed their own website and rallied the community.
• Washington students work to reverse change to review; lawyer says they helped change his views
• Washington teacher says action is better than reaction
• JEA takes strong position against prior review

Don’t let those who say censorship in education is acceptable misunderstand us: We will be heard and we will continue to work against its negative effects on school, community, and most importantly, on people’s lives.

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.

For an interesting and detailed article about the latest information in the ongoing battle against administrative censorship, check out today’s article in the News Tribune.

Be sure to read the comments. Students who need end-of-the-year activities might find this an issue worth comment.

One of the story’s points deals with the district’s attitude toward prior review as a way of protecting itself.

(Superintendent Tony) “Apostle, the Puyallup superintendent, declined to speak to The News Tribune. He did provide a copy of a letter he sent to students, saying the School Board does not intend to rescind its prior review rule. He said district lawyers have urged the board to retain the rule unless students and their parents agree to be financially liable for future legal claims,” the story reported.

The story also indicated student journalist attempts to report on the trial were themselves censored.

“Student journalist Allie Rickard withdrew her article after a district lawyer wanted to remove a direct quote and insert a sanitized version,” the News tribune reported. “The lawyer, Mike Patterson, also told Rickard that she could not include the names of the four student plaintiffs – even though they are part of the public record and had been published elsewhere, including in The News Tribune.

“Lawyers also asked Rickard to eliminate a sentence that explained a controversial legal concept in the trial.”

A school spokesman said the changes were not to censor but correct.

Despite the Dean v. Utica court decision and despite the fact they have had histories of being forums for student expression, at least two more Michigan schools and their student media face school board rejection of that student media status.

In a number of similar instances, a common factor, according to boards and advisers, is the consulting group, NEOLA.

NEOLA released  a revised set of policies this fall for student media, 5722, which consisted of four possible selections instead of a single choice, last updated in 2000. The 2000 model NEOLA policy did not support an open forum concept for student media. NEOLA says its updated four choices have two non open forum models and two open forum ones.

Either of the two forum offerings, as NEOLA presents them, allows a district to choose which student media not to permit to be called open forums. School boards can pick and chose which of the options they want to adopt.

NEOLA says it does not advocate any of the four choices over the others.

Information reported in today’s Hometownlife.com reported otherwise for journalism students in the Plymouth-Canton Community Schools.

“Acting on a recommendation from NEOLA,” the policy consultant used by the district,” the publication reported, “Plymouth-Canton’s policy committee recommended changes to the policy covering school-sponsored publications and productions.”

According to hometownlife, “The new policy, if adopted, applies to “school-sponsored media” such as Perspective, 88.1, yearbooks, playbills, blogs, library journals, theatrical productions and video and audio productions. It also extends to posters, pamphlets, and school-sponsored clothing such as T-shirts.”

The online publication also reported that a Michigan law firm supported imposing the restrictive Hazelwood interpretation of how school districts can control student media.

According to the article, school officials do not plan to change “the way we do business. We have an obligation to make sure our students maintain high standards of academic achievement.”

JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Commission is talking to Michigan advisers and NEOLA officials for additional information.

Reports of NEOLA-led changes came from the Dexter Schools. Student media in Dexter also face hostile blog attacks.

Anyone in Michigan or other states who faces similar actions over policy reversal should let their state JEA directors and the press rights commission know the details.

The Society of Professional Journalists this week termed disruptive the Wentzville Board of Education’s use of prior review, censorship and the resulting resignation of a trained adviser.

The letter urged administrators to end prior review of student media.

The comments were part of a letter from SPJ dated March 25 and addressed to board members and administrators. Information about the letter was posted by the SPLC on its blog.

The letter referred to prior review and censorship resulting from articles and photos about tattoos and other newspaper and yearbook content.

“Continuing these restrictions will only cause further damage to a once well-respected student publication,” wrote SPJ President Kevin Smith, “and it will send the message to students that governmental control of the news media is valued over a free press.”

In the 1970s, the American Library Association released a film for use in schools called The Speaker. The film dealt with multi-level decision making concerning free speech.

One line sticks in my mind: Just this once.

As in “what’s wrong if just this once we stop someone from speaking.”

Over the years, this translated into the realm of prior review: so what if just this once the principal prior reviews student media. Who is harmed? What is lost? How will it hurt? Who will care?

And, after all this time, journalism advisers and teachers do not have an common answer for the issues surrounding prior review.

For some, prior review gets teachers off the hook. It is a safety cushion where someone else takes the responsibility for decisions made.

For some, tolerating it or embracing it means a job. In this economy one almost cannot blame them.

For some, prior review means following commercial media when the publisher sometimes can say yay or nay to content.

For these and other reasons the scholastic journalism community has, for far too long, been unwilling to really confront this elephant in the room of journalistic learning.

Now, though, we are seeing more and more fruits of allowing just this once as it applies to prior review:

• Solid programs with solid advisers are falling to the spread of prior review. The latest is in Minnesota.
• Prior restraint, not a safer school or real educational growth, is the product of prior review.
• Administrators are starting to ask for proof that schools exist without prior review. Why?  Because they just don’t believe schools exist with review since that is what administrative consulting groups and school lawyers tell them. The latest instance of this comes from Colorado.
• Several administrative consulting groups across the nation, even though they don’t say they do, endorse in open or subtle ways administrative control of student media. Prior review. For self-protection. Because it is the safe thing to do.

Because the spread of prior review by those outside the staffs of student media is so extensive, so pervasive, we as journalism educators must do more than condemn this issue. We must raise challenges that ask:

• What are workable alternatives to prior review? And then create and distribute them.
• How do we show the practice has no educational value and in fact harms student educational growth? And model our beliefs.
• How do we show that truthful, accurate and complete reporting by student media cannot take place in an atmosphere of prior review? And showcase the solid programs where such reporting thrives.
• Does the risk of just this once dropping prior review outweigh administrative fears of students running amuck? And publicize the excellence of students, who without prior review consistently show their learning works.

Our goals should thus include:

• Clear demonstration, through the use of nationwide examples, that free and responsible student media means student decision making without prior review. Not responsible to mother school but to the idea of truth and serving the school’s various publics.
• Clear documentation that schools do prosper without prior review and that their numbers are substantial. We need to let each other know when our programs are public forums by policy or practice, and we need to do so proudly so those numbers make on impact on those who claim otherwise.
• Clear modeling to administrators that their best way to monitor student media is to hire qualified and caring advisers and teachers who empower students to grow by practicing what they are taught.

It is time to actively implement our beliefs, to remind those who support prior review they are wrong.

Just this once – before it is too late.

Looking for something constructive to do that concerns education, scholastic journalism and maybe even the future of democracy?

Join a team that opposes censorship.

Team McCandless.

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.

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.”

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.